SC Seeks Response from Centre and EC on PIL for Voting Rights of Undertrials

PTI, NEW DELHI, OCT 10, 2025 : The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of voting rights for nearly 4.5 lakh undertrial prisoners lodged in jails across India. A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions made by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who argued that the present blanket ban imposed under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, violates constitutional guarantees and international democratic norms.

The petition, filed by Sunita Sharma, a resident of Patiala in Punjab, named the Centre, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Election Commission as respondents. "This petition concerns the voting rights of about 4,50,000 pre-trial, under-trial, and non-finally convicted prisoners (excluding those prisoners who are in prisons for corrupt practices and offences connected with elections)," the petition said.

The PIL seeks judicial intervention to ensure that prisoners who have not been convicted of electoral offences or corruption are not arbitrarily deprived of their democratic right to vote. The petition further calls for the issuance of guidelines to set up polling stations in prisons for local prisoners, as well as the provision of postal ballots for inter-constituency or interstate prisoners (excluding those in prisons for any offence related to corrupt practices or electoral offences).

The petition argues that Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, imposes an unconstitutional and blanket restriction on all incarcerated individuals, regardless of whether they are convicted or awaiting trial. The petition contends that this provision is inconsistent with the laws' statement of objects and reasons, which primarily govern the inclusion and disqualification of electors and members of legislatures, rather than the wholesale exclusion of eligible citizens.

It also asserts that Section 62(5) was intended to regulate the voting rights of members of legislative bodies and was never meant to disqualify ordinary electors, particularly those who are yet to be convicted. The petition further claims that the application of this section fails the tests of constitutional consistency, non-arbitrariness, precision, and fairness, and undermines public confidence in the rule of law.

The petition highlights that over 75% of the prison population comprises undertrial or pre-trial detainees, many of whom languish in jails for years, sometimes even decades, before acquittal. "Denying such individuals their right to vote not only contravenes the principle of the presumption of innocence but also deprives them of participation in democratic governance despite no final adjudication of guilt," the petition said.

The plea referred to international practices and judicial precedents from other democracies, noting that no major democracy imposes a blanket ban on prisoners' voting rights. "Globally, voting rights are typically curtailed only after an individualized judicial determination or for specific serious offences," it said, adding that blanket bans have often been struck down by courts as unconstitutional in various jurisdictions.

The petition also cited India's obligations under international treaties and conventions on civil and political rights, which guarantee non-discriminatory participation in democratic processes. "Even in our neighboring country Pakistan, undertrial and pre-trial prisoners retain their voting rights. The Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not provide for the removal of voting rights in an impugned manner," the petition said. It emphasized that under the Indian Constitution, the right to vote is derived from inclusion in the electoral roll, and disqualification from electoral rolls may only be imposed on grounds of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, or involvement in crimes related to corrupt or illegal practices.