‘We Are Not Lawmakers, It’s People’s Choice’: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Compulsory Voting In Elections

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation moved by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for compulsory voting in the Parliament and State Assembly elections for increase in voter turnout and political participation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that voting is a right and the choice of the people, and asked Upadhyay if there is anything in the Constitution of India which makes voting mandatory.  

“That’s (voting) their (people’s) right, their choice. You want us to force someone who is in Chennai to leave everything, to go vote in Srinagar, police should catch hold of the person to give vote in Srinagar and then go back to Chennai,” the court orally remarked.

“Which Article says that it is mandatory? I want to see. Because we are not lawmakers,” Chief Justice added.

Upadhyay said that there are various judgments of the Supreme Court on the right to vote. To this, the bench said that he should then file a contempt petition before the Apex Court and avail remedies there.

As Upadhyay said that he is not pressing the first prayer of the petition, the court remarked:

“This is not done that when you’re confronted with something, then you say I am not pressing prayer a or prayer b. You withdraw this and file a fresh petition.”

The court also said that it will be imposing costs on Upadhyay after the BJP leader said that he will file supplementary material evidence in support of the PIL.

As Upadhyay prayed for withdrawal of the petition, the court ordered: “The counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition. The same is allowed.”

Upadhyay had also prayed that Law Commission of India be asked to examine various Supreme Court rulings on the right to vote and prepare a report on compulsory voting within three months.

The petition claimed that compulsory voting can help in increasing the voter turnout, particularly among marginalised communities and will also ensure that “every citizen has a voice and the government is representative of the people's wishes.”

The plea placed reliance on the system of compulsory voting adopted by other countries such as Australia, Belgium, and Brazil. It claimed that these countries have seen significant increases in voter turnout and improvements in the quality of democracy.

“Low voter turnout is a persistent problem in India: Compulsory voting can help to increase voter turnout, particularly ·among marginalized communities. It ensures that every citizen has a voice and that the government is representative of the people's wishes. When voter turnout is high, the government is more accountable to the people and is more likely to act in their best interests,” the plea said.

Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 247