Supreme Court PIL on Voting Rights for Undertrial Prisoners

The Supreme Court of India has requested responses from the Centre and the Election Commission regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks to acknowledge the voting rights of nearly 4.5 lakh undertrial prisoners in India.

Key Points of the PIL

• The PIL, filed by Sunita Sharma from Patiala, challenges the existing ban under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arguing that it contravenes constitutional guarantees and international democratic norms.
• The petition emphasizes the need to protect the democratic rights of prisoners who are not convicted of election-related offences or corruption.
• It proposes setting up polling stations in prisons and facilitating postal ballots for prisoners voting inter-constituency or interstate.
• The petition contests that Section 62(5) unjustly restricts the rights of incarcerated individuals, irrespective of their conviction status, which is inconsistent with the intended legislative purpose.

Arguments Against the Blanket Ban

• Over 75% of the prison population consists of undertrial detainees, many awaiting trial for extended periods without conviction.
• The ban undermines the principle of the presumption of innocence and excludes individuals from democratic participation without a final adjudication of guilt.
• Globally, such blanket restrictions on voting rights have been deemed unconstitutional in many democracies and are typically subject to individualized judicial determinations.

International Context and Obligations

• The plea references international treaties on civil and political rights, advocating for non-discriminatory democratic participation.
• Examples include Pakistan, where undertrial prisoners retain voting rights, highlighting India’s deviation from global practices.
• The petition mentions international and domestic initiatives, like the Election Commission’s 2016 drive 'No Voter to Be Left Behind', stressing the need for practical implementation of prisoners' voting rights.

The case emphasizes the constitutional basis for voting rights, derived from electoral roll inclusion, and argues against the exclusion of undertrial prisoners based on the outdated interpretations of disqualification grounds, urging the Election Commission to fulfill its commitment to electoral inclusivity.