Open Access Research Article
PRISONER’S VOTING RIGHTS IN INDIA – NEED FOR INFUSING LIFEBLOOD INTO DEMOCRACY
Published Paper
Article Details
PRISONER’S VOTING
RIGHTS IN INDIA – NEED FOR INFUSING LIFEBLOOD INTO DEMOCRACY
AUTHORED BY - NIVEDHA P[1]
1.
INTRODUCTION:
In
any democratic country, right to vote has always been the central focus as it
is the very basis of ensuring public participation and it is a right which is
very essential and universal. But to get this status of voting rights, people
had been through a lot of struggle across the globe. Initially, it was given
only to the political elite and people belonging to the category of women,
racial minorities, and property less or poor persons were denied the right to
vote. This was based on the sole reasoning that they cannot be trusted with
such big a responsibility. For instance, in US even though the constitution was
adopted in the year 1787, voting rights were denied for women and it was also
upheld by the Federal Court in Minor v.
Happersett[2]. The voting rights for women were
provided for only in 1920 by means of the 19th Constitutional
amendment[3]
after struggle for almost half a century.
1.1
EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN INDIA:
As
far as evolution of voting rights in India is concerned, during the colonial
period only 15% of the population had voting rights and that was also a limited
right and was subjected to certain restrictions and conditions. Thus, the
concept of universal adult suffrage was demanded for even before the Indian
independence. The Karachi Resolution of 1931 in which the Indian National
Congress stressed on implementing the adult suffrage principle. Dr. Ambedkar
was an adherent supporter of the universal adult suffrage principle and he has
provided two main reasons for the same:
(i)
It is very essential to the citizenship held by the subjects of the State.
(ii)
It promotes political education to the masses.
But,
The Constituent Assembly member H. V. Kamath was against this principle as he
was of the opinion that it’s a big power in the hands of the illiterate mass.
However, it was finally accepted and was incorporated under Art 326 of the
Indian Constitution.
Thus it can be
understood from the above provision that the right to vote has been made a
constitutional mandate but is subjected to certain restrictions and limitations[4].
Nonetheless, India takes pride in being the only country in which the right to
vote has been provided right from the inception of its constitution. In this
regard, it was observed by Constituent Assembly Member Alladi Krishnaswamy
Ayyar as follows[5]:
“...in spite of the ignorance and
illiteracy of the large mass of the Indian people, the Assembly has adopted the principle of adult franchise with an
abundant faith in the common man and the
ultimate success of democratic rule and in the full belief that the introduction of democratic government on
the basis of adult suffrage will bring enlightenment
and promote the well-being, the standard of life, the comfort and the decent living of the common man.... This
Assembly deserves to be congratulated on adopting
the principle of adult suffrage and it may be stated that never before in the history of the world has such an
experiment been so boldly undertaken."
1.2 RIGHT TO VOTE – LEGAL STATUS:
The right to vote has been
guaranteed under Art 326 to every person above the age of 18 years subject to
certain restrictions that are prescribed by the enactments made by the
Parliament in accordance with the power conferred on them. But it has not been
given the status of a constitutional right. In this regard, there are plethora
of judgments in which they have discussed about the status of right to vote
i.e. whether it is a constitutional right or statutory right.
In N. P. Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer[6],
it was held that Sec 61 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 provides for
right to vote making it more of a statutory right rather than a constitutional
one. The same was upheld in Rama Kant
Pandey v. UOI[7].
It is a creation of statute and is subject to limitations. The same was also observed in Karunanidhi v. Hande[8]. Similarly, in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [9],
it was observed that, “A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy,
is anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It
is sure and simple, a statutory right”. The same was upheld in Chief Election Commissioner v. Jan Chaudikar[10]
wherein it was observed that the right to vote is a statutory right. The law
gives it and thus has the power to take it away.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UoI[11]
a different observation was made. It stated that in an abstract sense, right to
vote is a constitutional and a fundamental right, the contours and lineation of
which are to be worked out by parliament through statute. This is based on the
reasoning that though right to vote is a statutory right, the act of voting is
in exercise of free speech provided under Art 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution[12].
2. LEGAL PROVISIONS
2.1 DOMESTIC LAWS:
As far as statutory provisions are
concerned, the Parliament has enacted two legislations in this regard based on
the power bestowed upon it under Art 326 of the Indian Constitution.
The two concerned legislations are:
(i) Representation of People’s Act,
1950
(ii) Representation of People’s Act,
1951.
2.1.1 INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Art 325 states that no person shall
be denied inclusion in the electoral roll on the basis of caste, religion, sex,
race or any of them. Art 326 provides for universal adult suffrage and states
what the prescribed disqualifications are.
2.1.2 THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1950:
Sec 16 of the Act provides for
disqualification for registration in electoral role. The following classes of
persons are not entitled to be registered in the electoral role:
(i) Not a citizen of India
(ii) Person of unsound mind
(iii) Disqualified from voting under
any law.
2.1.3 THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951:
Sec 11A of the 1951 provides for disqualification if the
person is convicted for commission of certain offences. The section reads as
follows:
11A. Disqualification
arising out of conviction and corrupt practices.—
(1) If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, is convicted of an offence punishable under section
171E or section 171F of the Indian Penal Code, or under section 125 or section
135 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 136 of this Act, he shall, for
a period of six years from the date of the conviction or from the date on which
the order takes effect, be is qualified for voting at any election.
(2) Any person disqualified
by a decision of the President under sub-section (1) of section 8A for any
period shall be disqualified for the same period for voting at any election.
However, it is imperative to note
that the disqualification under Sec 11A can be removed by the Election
Commission of India by exercising their discretion. This has been provided for
under Sec 11B of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Sec 62(1) of the 1951 Act provides
for the right to vote and states that no person whose name is not mentioned in
the electoral roll and who is not disqualified under this Act shall be entitled
to vote. However, Sec 62(5) specifically 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.”
From a bare perusal of the above
section we can understand that the prisoners and under-trials are not entitled
to vote. However, this exception is not applicable for detenues under the
preventive detention law. Thus, it is clear that the right to vote is not an
absolute right and is subjected to certain limitations and disqualifications
specifically provided for under the Act.
2.2 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS:
2.2.1 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
As per Art 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, states that
“Everyone has the right to take part in the
government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives”.
2.2.2 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
(ICCPR):
Art 2 states that there shall be no
discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Art 25 provides for the right to
vote which reads as follow:
“Right to vote to be exercised through voting
in genuine periodic elections which shall
be by universal and equal suffrage.”
2.2.3 UNITED NATION STANDARD RULES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
PRISONERS, 1955:
The UN has adopted the Standard
Rules for the treatment of Prisoners, 1955[13]
which provides for the guidelines as to the purpose of imprisonment and the
treatment to be given for the prisoners. Art 57 and 58 deals with the purpose
of imprisonment and Art 60 and 61 deals with treatment of prisoners.
Art 57 states that there should be
no further punishment after imprisonment as the right to self-determination is
already taken away. Art 58 states that the purpose of imprisonment is to
protect the society and thus, when the prisoners are released they should be
made a law-abiding citizen.
Art 60 says that the prison regime
should minimize any difference between the prison life and life at liberty and
Art 61 states that the treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion
from the community but their continuing part in it.
2.2.4 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON BASIC
PRINCIPLE FOR TREATMENT OF PRISONERS:
In addition to these conventions,
the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on basic principles for treatment
of prisoners.[14]Under
this convention, the prisoner’s rights are subjected to certain restrictions
which the States consider necessary. The prisoners shall be allowed all the
fundamental rights which are provided for under the Conventions to which their
concerned state is a party.
All the above mentioned legal
provisions are related to right to vote and from comparative reading of Indian
laws and Conventions, we can reach the conclusion that though India has
ratified these conventions, it has taken a departure from the rules laid
therein and has provided for a ban on voting rights for prisoners and
undertrials.
3. PRISONERS RIGHT TO
VOTE
3.1 POSITION IN INDIA:
As far as India is concerned, the
right to vote is not given to prisoners and under-trial convicts. However, the
persons under preventive detention are entitled to cast their vote. This is
provided under Sec 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The
Constitutionality of Sec 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was
upheld in the Anukul Chandra Pradhan v.
Union of India[15].
3.1.1 TREATMENT OF PRISONERS:
With regard to prisoners, the
prisoners will have no right to vote inside the prison. However, when they are
out on bail, they will have the right to cast their vote. Thus, this results in
further bifurcation of prisoners as –
(i) Prisoners who can get bail
(ii) Prisoners who cannot get bail.
In addition to this bail provision,
they have the discretion to take ordinary and emergency leave. By using this
leave, they can come out of the prison and cast their vote. In Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. v.
Election Commission of India[16]
the Supreme Court upheld the denial of rights to prisoners under Sec 62(5) of
the 1951 Act and held that the classification of the persons who are in jail
and who are out of jail is a valid classification. In that case, the denial of
voting rights for prisoners was challenged as violative of Art 14 of the
Constitution. The SC refused the contention and accepted the defense of
resource crunch raised by the UOI. If that is to be accepted as a reasonable
classification, then the prisoners on bail should not be allowed to cast their
vote, so that they all together would constitute one group as prisoners. Thus,
it can be seen that the judgment is not based on proper reasoning.
In practice, the prisoners were
denied the right to vote and the bail application has been accepted only after
proper scrutiny. For instance, In Banwari
Lal Kushwaha v. State of Rajasthan[17]
, the Rajasthan HC refused to permit a member of the assembly, who was in
prison and under police custody, to vote in the Rajya Sabha elections. In yet
another instance, The Minister of Minority Development and Aukaf of
Maharashtra, Nawab Malik and former State Home Minister, Anil Deshmukh, who are
currently in jail in money laundering cases since November 2021 and February
2022 respectively, sought temporary bail for a day to cast their votes in the
Rajya Sabha elections. Their plea was
rejected and was held that the accused were not entitled to vote.[18]
3.1.2 TREATMENT OF UNDER-TRIAL PRISONERS:
The under-trial prisoners are those
persons whose case is being tried by a competent court and are kept under
judicial custody pending trial. The criminal justice system is based on the
sound legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. But in
practice, the under-trials are also kept in judicial custody even without being
held guilty and thus, there arises a human rights violation which is a matter
of serious concern.
According to a 2019 National Crime
Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, there are around 1350 prisons in India and
India ranks 15th out of 217 countries on the basis of under-trial
population. Indian prison accommodates more than 70% of the prison population[19].
As per the Prison Report, many undertrials languish in jails for several years.
·
74.08% of undertrials
were confined for up to 1 year,
·
13.35% for 1-2 years,
·
6.79% for 2-3 years,
·
4.25% for 3-5 years and
The main reasons for such delay
include,
(i)
Delay in trial even
though speedy trial is guaranteed under Art 21 of the Indian Constitution and
also provided for under Sec 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was
also protected in Vakil Prasad Singh v.
State of Bihar[21]
but it is not in practice as there is undue delay in completion of the trial.
(ii)
The bail is being
granted based on some unreasonable condition even against the mandate of the
Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar[22].
(iii)
Indiscriminate arrest
and misuse of power by police officials are also an important reason. Even
though Sec 41 of CR.P.C has been amended in 2009 to protect the accused from
indiscriminate arrest and despite the ruling of the SC in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh[23]
that the arrest should be an exception and not the rule, the power to arrest is
being abused to a very great extent.
Apart from denying them the right to
life and liberty, they are also denied the right to vote. Even if the denial of
voting rights to prisoners on the ground of reasonable classification can be
accepted, there is no prudent and legit reason based on which the under-trials
are denied their right to vote. This is a matter of serious concern and grave
importance.
3.2 POSITION IN OTHER COUNTRIES[24]:
The position with regard to right to
vote for prisoners differs from one country to another. For instances, some 18
European Countries, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya,
Botswana, Canada, Switzerland provides voting for prisoners. Ireland in the year 2006 provided voting rights
for prisoners without any public demand, media outcry or judicial
pronouncement. On the other hand, there are countries like Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon
and New Zealand where there is blanket ban when it comes to prisoners voting
rights. In Peru, the pre-trial prisoners have right to vote but they cannot be
exercised.
In some countries, the right exists
in principle but depends on
(a)
The offence committed –
Kuwait, if it is considered to be a serious offence.
(b)
The sentence imposed –
Iceland where if you are sentenced for imprisonment for period exceeding 4
years, then you will be debarred from voting.
(c)
Type of election – For
instance in Ukraine, prisoners can vote in national election as they are
considered as citizens. In Czech Republic, Latvia, prisoners cannot vote in
local elections as they are not affected by local issues.
However, the rationale behind
debarment from voting rights varies from country to country. For instance, in
Poland, if you are sentences for 3 years or more and if the offence has been
committed with a motivation which deserves special condemnation, then you will
be debarred from voting in election. In Belgium, Conviction per se does not
debar you. The proportionality test will be followed to ascertain the status of
the prisoner.
3.2.1 WILLINGNESS OF PRISONERS TO CAST VOTE:
Even when the prisoners were allowed
to vote, there was low participation. For instance, in 2010 Victoria State
election in Australia only 26.4% of the prisoners casted their vote as against
the total registered out of around 92.96%.
In 2014 National and Provisional election in South Africa, only 9% of
the prisoners registered to vote. However, this lower percentage is due to the
following main reasons:
(i)
No information or very
limited information on how to vote is being provided to the prisoners.
(ii)
The procedure to cast
their vote is complicated so they stay out of it.
(iii)
Failure on the part of
the government or prison management to facilitate voting.
(iv)
Lack of interest.
4. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST PRISONERS RIGHT TO VOTE[25]
When it comes to right to vote for
prisoners, there are several people who argue for it and some say that this
classification has to be done away with. The arguments made on this behalf are
discussed below:
4.1 ARGUMENTS AGAINST GRANTING PRISONERS THE RIGHT TO VOTE:
(i)
CIVIL DEATH PRINCIPLE:
The people are of the opinion that civil death
should be a part of punishment. Back in those days people were subjected to
harsh punishments, the convicts were denied even the basic rights which were
enjoyed by the citizens. For example, the freedom of expression, right to
possess or inherit property, opportunity to serve in army, etc. were denied to
the convicts and they were treated differently even after serving the sentence.
This system is however not followed at present.
(ii) SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY:
The Philosophers like Thomas Hobbe,
John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau has propounded a theory called social
contract theory. According to this, the subjects enter into an agreement with
the ruler, by which their rights and duties are determined. The people argue
that the convicts have already broken the contract between them and the ruler
and thus, they are entitled to exercise their right to vote, as they have
voluntarily put themselves outside the social order by their conduct.
(iii) PURITY OF BALLOT BOX:
It is contend that the ballot box is
pure and this purity is to be preserved. The said objective can only be
achieved by denying prisoners the right to vote. This was the reason mentioned
by the Constitutional Court in South Africa in Minister of Home Affairs v. National Institute for Crime Prevention and
the Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO) and Ors.[26]
(iv) IT IS ALSO A PUNISHMENT AND STATE IS DUTY BOUND TO
IMPOSE IT:
The government has an obligation to
punish the offenders. This is based on the duty of the State to prosecute and
punish the offender. The denial of right to vote is always a punishment that
will consequently follow any conviction.
(v) DETERRENT THEORY:
Deterrent theory is a theory of
punishment according to which, people are most likely to be dissuaded from
committing a crime if the punishment is swift, certain and severe. The
punishment given will deter the convict from committing any other crime and at
the same time, will deter the common public from indulging in acts which has
resulted in conviction of the accused. This theory is based on two fundamental
principles, that is, certainty (that the wrongful act or criminal act will be
followed by punishment with 100% certainty) and severity of punishment (that
the punishment imposed need not be proportional but rather severe in nature to
deter people). The same reason is being given for a denying the right to vote.
This defense was also raised in Hirst v.
The United Kingdom[27].
The people will know that disqualification from voting will follow and thus,
will act as a deterrent.
These are some of the arguments put
forth by majority of people while contending that the right to vote should not
be given to prisoners.
4.2 ARGUMENTS AGAINST RIGHT TO VOTE:
(i) CONCEPT OF CIVIL DEATH IS OUTDATED:
The people are of the opinion that
the concept of civil death is outdated. This system was followed in ancient
period when the fundamental and basic human rights weren’t developed. Now, the
state has developed into the status of welfare state wherein the welfare of all
the people concerned in the state is to be taken into consideration. Thus, the
concept of civil death finds no place. Hence, the denial of voting rights for
prisoners based on this reasoning is obsolete.
(ii) UNDERMINES THE DEMOCRATIC POLITY:
Voting happens in a democratic
country, wherein the subjects will have a say in deciding their ruler which
will be determined based on their right to vote. The very core of democratic
principle is that the ruled will elect their ruler. When that is the basic
principle, denying the prisoners the right to vote undermines the democratic
policy. This is based on the reasoning that the prisoners still continue to be
a part of the country and just because they are convicted, does not mean that
they become stateless. Their identity as a citizen of that particular country
will still be retained and remains intact. Thus, the denial of right to vote
for prisoners and under-trials are unjust.
(iii) ELECTED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE THE
ELECTORATE:
Another argument is that the elected
should not be allowed to determine the electorate. Here, the elected that is
being chosen by the electorate should not be allowed to decide the voter as this
would create bias. Thus, the elected should have no say in determining the
eligible voters.
(iv) DISPARITY IN TREATING THE ACCUSED:
When a person who has been accused
of committing an offence can contest in an election, the denial of voting
rights for prisoners and undertrials is unreasonable. In Public Interest Foundation v. UoI[28]
it was held that the voters have a right to know the criminal antecedents of
the contesting candidates and thus, the political parties must publish the same
in the website and newspapers. In fact, criminalization of politics has become
so rampant that it has been dealt with in 2 main committee reports:
(a)
Goswami Committee on
Electoral Reforms (1990)
(b)
Vohra Committee Report
(1993)
Thus, when a person cannot be
debarred form contesting in election merely because a case has been initiated
against him or a charge sheet has been filed, the same must apply to under-trail
prisoners as well. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has to be
applied equally to both the elected and the elector.
(v) REHABILITATION SHOULD BE THE ULTIMATE MOTIVE:
The purpose of sentencing has shifted from
deterrence to rehabilitation and thus, when the aim of the punishment is to
rehabilitate the offender and make him a law abiding citizen, curtailing him
from exercising his right to elect representative will not simply help the
cause.
These are some of the arguments in
favour of and against the granting of voting rights for prisoners.
5. SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 SUGGESTIONS:
India being a signatory of the UDHR,
the ICCPR steps must be taken to ensure compliance. Since the Convention has
nowhere provided for blanket ban or prisoners and under-trial, the legal
position in India has to be changed in accordance with the principles laid down
in these conventions. Some of the suggestions in this regard would include:
(i)
The prisoners should
also be considered as a part of society and even their say matters.
(ii)
The right to life does
not mean mere animal existence and it is inclusive of right to live with
dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life
such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities
for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving
about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the
right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to
carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of
human self. This was observed in Francis
Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi[29].
The right to vote is also a basic necessity in a democratic country. Thus,
the ban should be removed.
(iii)
The problems of
prisoners should also be addressed and this will not be done unless and until
they are added in the electoral roll. When done, the manifestos would certainly
include the development of prison management and its condition.
(iv)
The right to vote should
be given the status of fundamental right, so that it will not be curtailed
unnecessarily except under Art 19(2) which should withstand the test of
reasonable restrictions. Justice Chelameswar, one of the nine Judges in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. UoI[30]
had referred to the need to have a fundamental right to vote.
(v)
Elections can be held
inside the prison which would reduce the need for additional finances.
(vi)
Postal ballots can also
be used to conduct election for prisoners and under-trials.
(vii)
Election can be held in
a pre-selected day before the actual poll to reduce any discrepancies. This
system is followed in Canada and the same can be applied here.
5. 2 CONCLUSION:
Right to vote accords the status of
citizenship as it is a privilege which is being exercised only by the citizens
of a country. In August v. Electoral
Commission[31],
it was observed that
“The vote of each and every citizen
is a badge of dignity and of personhood. Quite literally,
it says that everybody counts. In a country of great disparities of wealth and power, it declares that whoever we are, whether
rich or poor, exalted or disgraced, we
all belong to the same democratic South African nation; that our destinies are inter-twined in a single interactive
polity”.
The same applies to all the
countries irrespective of its economic, geographic political or social
differences. To put it in nutshell, imprisonment does not mean statelessness.
Right to vote, if given to prisoners would essential mean that even they
matter. Be it is a hardened criminal or a first time offender, they still are
part of the society and thus, their very existence is enough to allow them the
right to vote.
[1] Pursuing LL.M (Taxation law) in
the School of Excellence in Law, Chennai.
[2] Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875). The Court while
accepting that women are not any less than men observed that the right to
citizenship does not confer the right to vote.
[3] It states that “the rights of the
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any state on account of sex”.
[4] In this regard, the Parliament has
enacted the Representation of People’s Act, 1950 and Representation of People’s
Act, 1951.
[5] Gautam Bhatia, ‘Ambedkar and the right to vote’, Lawmint
(2019) available at https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/ambedkar-and-the-right-to-vote-1555040490483.html last accessed on 25.06.2022.
[7] Rama
Kant Pandey v. UOI, 1993 AIR 1766.
[8] Karunanidhi
v. Hande, 1983 AIR 558.
[9] Jyoti
Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983.
[10] Chief
Election Commissioner v. Jan Chaudikar, Civil Appeal no. 3040 – 3041
of 2004.
[11] People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil no.
161 of 2004.
[12] Gautam Bhatia, ‘PUCL v. Union of India: The Supreme Court and the negative voting’,
Indian Constitutional law and Philosophy (Sept. 28, 2013), https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/pucl-v-union-of-india-the-supreme-court-and-negative-voting/ last accessed on 27.06.2022.
[13] Popularly called as the Nelson
Mandela Rules.
[15] Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2814.
[17] Banwari Lal Kushwaha v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No.234/2016.
[18] Hinduja, ‘Is the right to vote a fundamental right or a constitutional right?’,
The Leaflet (June 12, 2022), https://theleaflet.in/is-the-right-to-vote-a-fundamental-right-or-a-constitutional-right/ last accessed on 27.06.2022.
[19] Bhakthi Parekh, ‘Denial Of Voting Rights To Under-trial
Prisoners: An Unreasonable And Unjust disqualification’,
Live law (Oct 18, 2021), https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/voting-rights-undertrial-prisoners-black-robes-legal-183859?infinitescroll=1 last accessed on 27.06.2022.
[20] Vidushi Gupta, ‘The state of under trial incarceration in
India’, The Criminal Law Blog – National Law University, Jodhpur(Oct 25, 2020),
https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2020/10/25/the-state-of-undertrial-incarceration-in-india/#:~:text=As%20per%20Prison%20Statistics%20India,of%201350%20prisons%20in%20India.&text=Undertrial%20prisoners%20formed%2070%25%20of,66.97%25%20over%20the%20past%20years last accessed on 27.06.2022.
[21] Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Criminal appeal no. 138 OF
2009.
[22] Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR
1369.
[23] Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260.
[24] Baljeet Kaur, ‘Prisoner’s right to vote: citizen without a vote in a democracy has no
existence’, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 54, Issue No. 30 (27 Jul,
2019), https://www.epw.in/node/154673/pdf
last accessed on 27.06.2022.
[26] Minister of Home Affairs v. National Institute for Crime Prevention and
the Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO) and Ors., 2005 (3) SA 280 (CC).
[27] Hirst v. the United Kingdom, (2005) ECHR 681.
[28] Public interest Foundation v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil)
no. 536 of 2011.
[29] Francis
Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746.
[30] J. K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Writ Petiton (Civil) No. 494
OF 2012.
Article Information
PRISONER’S VOTING RIGHTS IN INDIA – NEED FOR INFUSING LIFEBLOOD INTO DEMOCRACY
Authors: NIVEDHA P
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/14
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.