Analysis of the judgment

♤ The judgment says that a person who is confined in a prison or in the lawful custody of police, loses the right to vote (S. 62(5) of RPA, 1951), and is hence disqualified from contesting elections.

♤ The reasoning is that a person who has no right to vote is disqualified from registering in the electoral rolls Section 16(1)(c) of RPA, 1950 implying that he/she is not an ‘elector’ under Section 2(1)(e) of RPA, 1951, which is one of the qualifications for “being chosen to fill a seat” of the House of the People and a Legislative Assembly of a State under Section 4(d) and 5(c) of RPA, 1951.

♤ The Supreme Court reasoned that it was reasonable to deny voting rights to convicted prisoners, under trials and those in police custody because it was being done to curb the criminalisation of politics.

♤ Further, it took account of practical considerations and ruled that the additional resources that would be required in terms of infrastructure, security and deployment of extra police forces were legitimate justifications in denying the right to vote to prisoners and those in custody.

♤ It reasoned that a prisoner was in prison as a result of his own conduct and is, therefore, deprived of his liberty during the period of his imprisonment and cannot claim equal freedom of movement, speech and expression with the others who are not in prison.

♤ However, the decision brings into debate the constitutional soundness of Section 62(5), 1951. Right to vote is a statutory right, and hence is under the regulation by the legislature, subject to Article 325 and 326 of the constitution. While, Section 62(5), is one of the conditions laid down, which has to be looked upon for a person to vote in the election. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected a challenge against the validity of section 62(5) which contended that the section is violative of Article 14, right to equality and Article 21, right to life.

♤ Even if section 65(2) is considered to be valid, it violates the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty”. Under this section, we are placing the people who are accused of an offence under the same category of those who are already convicted and not allowing them to vote.

The principle of reasonable classification is valid under Article 14 however; such a classification is averse to classifying reasonably. It gives power to a person to strip off other person from is right to vote, by simply accusing him and accounting him to go to jail. Such a rule negates the very concept of citizenship and denies the person of his right to be heard of in forming the government. If section 62(5), is considered to be valid and abiding to all the constitutional principles, then the rationale given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court behind the decision is logically sound.