Right to Vote for Prisoners

Table of Contents

Right to Vote for Prisoners RPA

Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951

It states that “No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force.”

Discriminatory: The Petition argued that while convicts out on bail could vote, under trials, whose innocence or guilt has not been conclusively determined, and those confined in civil persons were deprived of their right to vote.
Large exclusion: The petitioner asserted that the provision arbitrarily, through the use of “excessively broad language”, disenfranchises a large segment of the population of the country.

A total of 5,54,034 prisoners were confined as on December 31, 2021 in various jails across the country.
The number of convicts, undertrial inmates and detenues were reported as 1,22,852, 4,27,165 and 3,470, respectively, accounting for 22.2%, 77.1% and 0.6% respectively at the end of 2021.
The number of undertrial prisoners has increased by 14.9% in 2021.
Uttar Pradesh has the maximum number of undertrials (21.2%) in the country followed by Bihar (13.9%) and Maharashtra (7.4%).

Anomalous consequences: The petition said ‘the yardstick of confinement in a prison to disenfranchise persons generates several anomalous and shocking consequences.’
- One of them is that even a judgment-debtor (a person who has not paid his debt despite a court verdict) who has been arrested and detained in a civil person is deprived of her right to vote.
- Depriving someone confined in a civil prison of their right to vote is plainly discriminatory since detainment in civil prisons is different from imprisonment for crimes.
Undermines democracy: According to the petition “denying inmates the right to vote is more likely to send messages that undermine respect for the law and democracy than messages that enhance those values”.
Lack of reasonable classification: The petitioner claimed that the ban on right to vote for prisoners lacks reasonable classification based on the nature of the crime or duration of the sentence imposed unlike in countries like South Africa, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Greece, Canada, etc.
- This lack of classification is anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.
No nexus with decriminalization of politics: The petition questioned the logic behind the election law that the provision does not have any nexus at all with decriminalization of politics, which is concerned with the right to contest of candidates with criminal antecedents.

Anukul Chandra Pradhan Vs Union of India, 1997: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 62(5) of the RPA, 1951.
- The court expressed that the denial of the right to vote for prisoners is not a violation of Article 21 and Article 14 of the Indian constitution.
Praveen Kumar Chaudhary Vs Election Commission, 2020: In this case, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that prisoners do not have a right to vote, thereby upholding the constitutional validity of Section 62(5) of the RPA, 1951.
- Through this judgment, the court also explained and cited the infrastructural problems and violations in allowing the prisoners to vote.