Prisoners' Voting Rights: Supreme Court issues notice to Central government on challenge to Section 62(5) of Representation of People Act

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government on a public interest litigation challenging the vires of Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act which prohibits a person confined in a prison from casting their vote..A Bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli issued notice on the plea today filed through advocate Zoheb Hossain and listed the matter for hearing on December 29, 2022. .The public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed more than three years ago in 2019 by one Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya, who was then a third-year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore.He pointed out that the wording of Section 62(5) uses 'confinement' as the yardstick, thereby, creating several anomalies.Section 62(5) deprives any person confined to a prison of the right to vote at any election. The provision reads:“No person shall vote at any election is 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.”.The PIL said that in addition to convicts sentenced to imprisonment, even under-trials whose innocence or guilt has not been conclusively determined, are deprived of their right to vote as they too are confined in prison although they have not been sentenced to imprisonment.However, a convict imprisoned as part of the sentence can still cast vote if released on bail as such a person is not per se confined in prison, the petition stated..Further, a person detained in civil prison is also deprived of the right to vote, the petition stated, as a result of the overly broad language in the provision, which uses ‘confinement’ in the context of a “sentence of imprisonment…or otherwise”.The provision operates as a blanket ban, as it lacks any kind of reasonable classification based on the nature of the crime committed or the duration of the sentence imposed, the petition stated.This lack of classification is anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14, the petitioner emphasized in his plea. .Hossain with advocates Vivek Gurman and Kavish Garach appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Anirudh Sanganeria represented the respondents. [Read order]