Democracy an essential feature of Constitution, yet no recognition of fundamental right to vote: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday described as paradoxical the fact that the right to vote has not been recognised as a fundamental right in India, despite democracy being an essential facet of the Constitution. (Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K Madan Mohan Rao and ors).A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar stressed that an elector's right to know the detailed background of a candidate is part of constitutional jurisprudence and said,"The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise...Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right.".The observations came in a judgment that upheld the lodging of an election petition by Congress leader K Madan Mohan Rao, who lost the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from Zahirabad to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader Bhim Rao Patil by 6,299 votes.Rao had alleged that Patil violated norms by disclosing false information in his election affidavit, particularly with respect to criminal cases filed against him.The Telagana High Court in the first round of litigation had quashed the election petition on June 15, 2022. The said order was eventually stayed by the Supreme Court, which asked the High Court to decide the matter afresh.The High Court in March this year allowed the filing of the election petition, while keeping all contentions open during trial. This led to the present appeal by Patil before the top court, which had issued notice in the case on April 10 this year..The Court at the outset noted that the appellant had not denied any of the allegations or past convictions. It added that the High Court was right in not setting aside the election petition based on material brought on record by Patil towards contesting the allegations."The impugned order, as noticed earlier, is premised on the reasoning that any material brought on the record by the successful candidate who is a respondent in the election proceedings, ipso facto cannot be considered within the framework of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plea altogether. That understanding in this Court’s opinion is correct.".The Bench reitarated that there could not have been a partial rejection of the petition in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further, contentions by Patil regarding the nature of the convictions have to be considered at the stage of trial and not at the outset."The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations ... has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content, is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part.".It went on to underscore that a voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate, as evolved through precedents, is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence. Therefore, the High Court's order was upheld and the appeal dismissed..Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram and Harin P Raval with Advocates Srinivas R Rao, N Manohar, Nisha Padmanabhan, Abid Ali Beeran P, Sarath S Janardanan, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inyat and Shreya Bansal appeared for BRS leader Patil.Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Salman Khurshid with Advocates Azra Rehman, Vanya Gupta, Ankit Agarwal and Viyushti Rawat represented Congress leader Rao..[Read judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.