2020 (2) TMI 1643 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Section 62(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1951

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It upheld ... Right to vote - Fundamental Right or Statutory Right - Section 62(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution or not - HELD THAT:- Section 62(5) is constitutionally valid. The classification of the persons who are in jail and who are out of jail is a valid classification and it has a reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. In the case of S. RADHAKRISHNAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [1999 (8) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that Section 62(5) of the Act is constitutionally valid and right to vote is not a fundamental right but it is a statutory right and it can be made limited by the statute. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit.2. Constitutional validity of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.3. Alleged violation of Article 14 and the basic structure of the Constitution by Section 62(5).4. Provision of voting facilities and amenities to prisoners.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Counter Affidavit:The respondents, Election Commission of India (ECI), filed an application for condonation of 28 days delay in submitting their counter affidavit. The court, after considering the reasons stated in the application, condoned the delay and accepted the affidavit on record, thus disposing of the application.2. Constitutional Validity of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The petitioners challenged Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, claiming it was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Section 62(5) states, 'No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police.' The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 62(5). The Supreme Court had reasoned that the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental or constitutional right, and thus can be limited by statute.3. Alleged Violation of Article 14 and the Basic Structure of the Constitution by Section 62(5):The petitioners argued that Section 62(5) creates an invalid classification between persons in jail and those out on bail, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They pointed out that the second proviso to Section 62(5) allows a person to contest elections but not vote if they are in jail, which they claimed was discriminatory. However, the court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that the classification is reasonable and serves the objective of preventing the criminalization of politics and maintaining the integrity of elections. The Supreme Court had held that the restriction on prisoners' voting rights is justified due to the need for substantial police deployment and security during elections, which would be impractical if prisoners were allowed to vote.4. Provision of Voting Facilities and Amenities to Prisoners:The petitioners sought directions to ensure that facilities and amenities were provided to prisoners to enable them to vote from jail premises. The court, relying on the Supreme Court's previous judgments, concluded that the right to vote is not a fundamental right but a statutory one, subject to limitations imposed by the statute. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioners' request for voting facilities for prisoners.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is constitutionally valid. The classification between prisoners and non-prisoners is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the objective of maintaining the purity of elections and preventing the criminalization of politics. The right to vote, being a statutory right, can be restricted by law, and the petitioners' grievances were found to be without substance.