[7th July 2026] The Hindu OpED: In India, voting cannot remain merely a statutory right 

Mentor’s Comment

A Congress leader has revived the demand to recognise voting as a fundamental right, reopening a settled constitutional debate. The demand exposes a growing inconsistency between the Supreme Court’s insistence that voting remains a mere statutory right and its own decisions constitutionalising nearly every facet surrounding the vote.

Why has the Supreme Court traditionally treated the right to vote as a statutory right rather than a fundamental right?

1. Foundational ruling: N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer (1952) held that the right to vote is not a common law right. Parliament created this right through statute.
2. Reaffirmation: Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal (1982) held the right to elect is “purely a statutory right.” Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy denied it the status of a fundamental right.
3. Constitution Bench position: Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006) held that democracy forms part of the basic structure (basic structure doctrine: the principle that certain core features of the Constitution cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment). It held that the individual right to vote flows from the Representation of the People Acts, not from the Constitution.
4. Textual basis: Part III of the Constitution does not list the right to vote among the fundamental rights.
5. Parliamentary latitude: This textual silence gives Parliament wide discretion. Parliament prescribes qualifications, disqualifications, and procedures for elections.

How has judicial interpretation constitutionalised individual facets of voting, and what anomaly does this create?

1. Right to know: Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) held that voters have a right to know the criminal antecedents, educational qualifications, and financial assets of candidates. The Court grounded this right in Article 19(1)(a).
2. Freedom to choose: People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2003) held that the freedom to make an informed choice is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The Court retained the position that the right to vote itself is statutory.
3. Right to reject: The 2013 NOTA judgment held that a voter’s decision to reject all candidates is political expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The Court extended ballot secrecy to voters who choose not to vote for any candidate.
4. Emerging judicial view: Justice Ajay Rastogi’s separate opinion in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023) favoured recognising voting as a fundamental right. This view did not command a majority on the Constitution Bench.
5. Resulting anomaly: The Court has made the right to know, the freedom to choose, and the right to reject all candidates fundamental. The act of voting itself remains a mere statutory entitlement.
6. Logical inconsistency: The Constitution protects the right to reject every candidate. Denying protection to the right to choose one is incongruous.

Does recognising a Fundamental Right to vote require removing Parliament’s power to regulate elections?

1. Limited scope of the claim: Constitutional recognition is not required for every procedural detail of voting. It is required only for the core right to participate in the democratic process.
2. Regulatory power retained: Parliament continues to prescribe qualifications, disqualifications, and age requirements for elections. Electoral rolls and residency conditions also remain within Parliament’s domain.
3. Corrupt practices regulation: Disqualification for corrupt practices remains a statutory matter. This regulation is necessary for orderly elections.
4. Entitlement distinguished from mechanics: The mechanics of voting may remain statutory. The citizen’s underlying entitlement to be a voter need not.

Why does the basic structure doctrine make the statutory classification of voting untenable?

1. Democracy as basic structure: Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) held that democracy forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
2. Free elections as essential feature: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975) held that free and fair elections are an essential feature of democracy.
3. Source of legitimacy: Elections derive legitimacy from citizen participation through the ballot. The vote is the instrument through which popular sovereignty is exercised.
4. Constitutional source of entitlement: Article 326 mandates elections on the basis of universal adult suffrage. Every citizen above 18 is constitutionally entitled to be registered as an elector, subject only to narrowly defined disqualifications.
5. Statute merely operationalises: The Representation of the People Acts operationalise the command in Article 326. They do not create the underlying entitlement.
6. Exclusion as constitutional harm: Exclusion from the electoral roll strikes at a constitutional guarantee. This holds except where exclusion follows constitutionally permissible limitations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has extended constitutional protection to the right to know, the freedom to choose, and the right to reject candidates, while continuing to classify the act of voting itself as merely statutory. This position is inconsistent with the Court’s own recognition that democracy and free and fair elections form part of the basic structure. The Court must revisit the Ponnuswami-Jyoti Basu-Kuldip Nayar line of doctrine. The citizen’s entitlement to be a registered elector flows from Article 326 of the Constitution, leaving only the mechanics of voting to statutory regulation.