Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Section 62(5) Which Deprives Prisoners The Right To Vote

The Supreme court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi issued notice in a petition challenging Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deprives prisoners of their right to vote. The matter has been listed for December 9, 2022. 

The petition submits that using confinement in a prison as a yardstick to disenfranchise persons has several challenges such as depriving under-trials, whose innocence or guilt has not been conclusively determined, of their right to vote. As per the petition, this makes Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disproportionate, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The petition adds that due to the excessively broad language used by the provision, even those detained in civil prison are deprived of their right to vote. Thus, there is no reasonable classification based on the purpose of the imprisonment.

"The impugned provision operates in the nature of a blanket ban, as it lacks any kind of reasonable classification based on the nature of the crime committed or the duration of the sentence imposed (unlike several other jurisdictions such as South Africa, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Greece, Canada et al). This lack of classification is anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14," the petition argues.

Additionally, as per the petition, the right to vote is a constitutional right under Article 326 of the Constitution. As such, any curtailment of such a right must be based upon permissible restrictions found within the Constitution itself and in the absence of any such restrictions, the curtailment in question is ultra vires the Constitution. The petition states that–

"Confinement in a prison, which is the yardstick used by the impugned provision, is not one of the constitutionally permissible restrictions to the right to vote under Article 326."

Accordingly, the petition seeks for the impugned provision to be read down in order to ensure that it conforms to the Constitution.

"If this is not possible, then the impugned provision must be struck down altogether for suffering from an incurable vice of unconstitutionality", the petition adds.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Zoeb Hussain.

CASE TITLE: Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) Np. 462/2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order