LexANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ANUKULCHANDRAPRADHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JULY 9, 1997 (J.S. VERMA, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.) Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951-Section 62(5)-'-Denial of Right to Vote-Plisoners, persons under custody-Validity of-Held, provision is reasonable and valid. Constitution of lndia-A1ts. 14, 21 & 32-Wiit Petition--Challenging constitutional validity of a Statut01y light-Held cannot be made with refer- ence to a fundamental right. A B c The Petitioner challenged the validity of Section 62(5) of the Repre- D sentation of the People Act, 1951, on the grounds that the provision in as much as it debars the prisoners or persons othernise in custody from exercising their right to vote violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, that the expression has a wide connotation, that it would include a person detained during investigation and on the other hand a person convicted E and sentenced but released on bail is permitted to vote, that it violates Article 21 in as much as it denies dignity of life and that person in preven- tive detention cannot be classified separately . Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court HELD : 1. Classification of persons in and out of prison separately is reasonable. In view of the restriction on movement of a prisoner, a prisoner cannot claim that he should be provided the facility to vote. A provision imposing a restriction on a prisoner to vote cannot be called unreasonable. [645-H; 646-A-B] 2. A person who is in prison as a result of his own conduct, and is, therefore, deprived of his liberty during the period of his imprisonment cannot claim equal freedom of movement, speech and expression with the others who are not in prison. [645-G-H] F G 3. Preventive detention differs from imprisonment on conviction or H 641 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A during investigation of the crime of an accused which permits separate classification of the detenus under preventive detention. Preventive deten· tion is to prevent breach of law while imprisonment on conviction or during investigation is subsequent to the commission of the crime. [645-D-E] B 4. The nature of right to vote is a statutory right and not a common law right. The right is subject to the limitations imposed by the Statute, which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the Statute. The challenge to the provision cannot be made with reference to a fundamental right in the Constitution. [647-B-C] C N.P. Ponnuswami v. Retuming Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors., [1952] SCR 218 (236); Jumwza Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. Lachhi Ram and Ors., [1955] 1 SCR 608 (610) and Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, . [1982] 1 sec 691 (696), relied on. CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. D 137 of 1996. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In-Person for Petitioner. E Rajin.der Sachar and Sanjay Parikh for Intervenor. Pallav Sisodia for P. Parrneshwaran for the Respondents. A. M. Khanwilkar for Election Commission. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. G VERMA, CJI. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge is made to the constitutional validity of sub-section ( 5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 62 relates to right to vote and is as under : "62. Right to vote. • (1) No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency. H (2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he - ., ~· AC. PRADHAN v. U.0.1. [VERMA, CTI.] 643 is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43of1950). (3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more than one such cons~ituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be void. (4) No person shall at any election vote in the same constituency more than once, notwithstanding that his name may have been registered in the electoral roll for that constituency more than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that constituency shall be void. (5) 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.