Legislator denied voting in custody for Rajya Sabha Election under Representation of People Act

The court dismissed the petition of an elected Legislative Assembly representative seeking permission to vote in the Rajya Sabha Election while in pretrial custody, citing Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which prohibits voting for individuals in custody unless under preventive detention. The court emphasized the statutory bar on voting rights for confined individuals and upheld the constitutionality of the provision, ultimately ruling that the petitioner was ineligible to participate in the election.

---

---

Issues:
- Right of a confined individual to vote in an election while in custody pending trial.
- Interpretation of Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 regarding voting rights of individuals in prison.
- Applicability of specific provisions in election laws to different types of elections.
- Requirement of making necessary parties in a petition challenging electoral procedures.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an elected representative of the Legislative Assembly, sought permission to participate in the Rajya Sabha Election and cast his vote while in custody pending trial for serious offenses. The petitioner argued that since he had not been convicted and his imprisonment was pretrial, he should be allowed to exercise his right to vote, citing constitutional rights and precedents where similar permissions were granted.

2. The Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner, being in lawful custody, was not entitled to vote as per Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was argued that the petitioner did not fall under the exception for preventive detention, thus disqualifying him from voting.

3. The court examined the provisions of the Representation of People Acts of 1950 and 1951, highlighting their comprehensive nature in regulating various aspects of elections. It emphasized the importance of distinguishing between general and specific provisions within the Acts, particularly in relation to voting rights and election procedures.

4. The court analyzed Section 62(5) of the Act of 1951, which explicitly prohibits individuals in prison or police custody from voting in elections, except for those under preventive detention. Citing a Supreme Court judgment upholding the constitutionality of this provision, the court concluded that the petitioner, being in custody, was ineligible to vote in the Rajya Sabha Election.

5. Addressing the petitioner's reliance on a judgment allowing participation in legislative assembly proceedings, the court differentiated between matters of electoral rights and legislative proceedings, asserting that the former is governed by specific election laws. It emphasized the importance of including necessary parties, such as the Chief Election Commission and State Assembly Secretary, in petitions challenging electoral processes.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could not be granted the requested directions due to the clear provisions of the law disqualifying individuals in custody from voting in elections. The court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 62(5) and emphasized the statutory nature of the right to vote as determined by previous judicial interpretations.

---