SYLLABUS: Indian Polity General Studies – : II Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
IN NEWS: Should voting be a fundamental right?
QUESTION: Should the ‘right to vote’ be elevated from a statutory right to a fundamental right? Discuss the arguments in favour of and against such a constitutional change.
ANSWER: In India, the right to vote is a constitutional/statutory right under Article 326 and Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, rather than a Part III Fundamental Right. While the Supreme Court recognizes voting choice as part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), the core right remains subject to legislative limits. Elevating it to an explicit Fundamental Right would significantly alter voter agency and state regulation.
Arguments in Favour
- Strengthens Political Equality: Aligns voting with Articles 14 and 21, establishing it as an inherent constitutional right essential to popular sovereignty rather than a statutory privilege.
- Enables Direct Judicial Protection: Subjects legislative or administrative restrictions to strict judicial scrutiny under Article 32. Citizens could directly petition the Supreme Court against wrongful roll purges or procedural hurdles.
- Protects Marginalized and Migrant Voters: Places an affirmative duty on the state to facilitate voting access (e.g., remote voting) for internal migrants and vulnerable populations hindered by residency and documentation barriers.
- Shields Against Arbitrary Amendments: Prevents Parliament from altering voter eligibility through simple statutory amendments, requiring all restrictions to satisfy tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
Arguments Against
- Complicates Administrative Regulation: Standard qualifications—such as age, residency, sound mind, or integrity requirements—could face frequent constitutional challenges, limiting the state’s regulatory capacity.
- Undermines Prisoner Disenfranchisement Rules: Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act disables prisoners from voting. Upgrading the right to Part III would challenge this bar, complicating the legal framework surrounding criminal disqualification.
- Increases Litigation and Delays: Could submerge the Election Commission of India (ECI) in constitutional litigation over minor roll errors or logistics, risking delays to strict election schedules.
- Existing Protections Are Adequate: Article 326, ECI authority under Article 324, and Article 19(1)(a) interpretations already secure voter rights while retaining legislative flexibility.
Instead of a full Part III conversion, strengthening statutory safeguards under Article 326—such as remote voting mechanisms and strict procedural checks against deletion—ensures voter inclusion while preserving administrative feasibility.
|
SOURCE: The Hindu e-paper – Should voting be a fundamental right?