The Right to Vote: A Constitutional Right in India?
For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has held that voting is a statutory right, not a fundamental one. A series of its own judgments, however, have created a constitutional paradox, prompting a re-examination of this foundational tenet of Indian democracy.
Why is the status of the right to vote being debated?
The central issue is a long-standing legal paradox. For over seven decades, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to vote is a statutory right, derived from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This means it is a right granted by Parliament, which can also regulate or curtail it through legislation.
However, a series of judgments since the early 2000s has elevated various facets of voting to the status of fundamental rights. This has created a legal anomaly where components of the voting process, such as the right to information about candidates, are constitutionally protected, but the core act of voting itself is not. This inconsistency, coupled with recent judicial observations, has reignited the debate on whether the right to vote should be formally recognised as a constitutional, if not a fundamental, right.
What is the traditional judicial position and its reasoning?
The traditional stance of the judiciary is that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are not inherent rights but are creations of statute. This position was first articulated by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer (1952). The Court reasoned that since these rights are not mentioned in Part III of the Constitution and did not exist as common law rights, they owe their existence entirely to laws passed by Parliament.
This principle was firmly reiterated in Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others (1982), where Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy observed that the right to elect, “fundamental though it is to democracy”, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but “purely a statutory right”. The logic is that while the Constitution provides the broad principle of universal adult suffrage in Article 326, the specific qualifications and the right itself are given effect by parliamentary legislation. This was upheld again by a Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006). The primary implication of this doctrine is that Parliament retains significant authority to regulate the conditions of voting through ordinary legislation.
Keep reading this explainer
This is the opening of a 1625-word explainer. An account brings you the rest, a PDF to keep and the whole Explained archive.
Takes about a minute. Your email and a password is all it needs.