Prisoner voting restriction upheld as a valid classification tied to electoral probity and free and fair elections.

Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disables persons confined in prison or lawful custody from voting, and the provision is upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court treated the right to vote as a statutory, not fundamental, right and held that Article 14 permits a reasonable classification where there is a rational nexus with the legislative object. Prisoners were found to form a valid separate class because the exclusion supports probity in elections, limits criminalisation of politics, and promotes free and fair elections. The restriction was therefore held not to violate Article 14 or the basic structure.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disables persons confined in prison or in lawful custody from voting, is unconstitutional as violating Article 14 and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court followed the settled position that the right to vote is a statutory right and not a fundamental right. It noted that Article 14 permits reasonable classification if the classification has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The exclusion of prisoners from voting was held to be a valid class distinction, linked to the legislative object of preventing criminalisation of politics, maintaining probity in elections, and ensuring free and fair elections. The Court also relied on prior decisions holding that the restriction is reasonable and that a person in custody is not similarly situated to a person outside jail.

Conclusion: Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 or the basic structure.

---