information

Hey,

In India, the convicts do not have the right to vote. Recently in a petition in the Delhi High Court, the Election Commission of India informed the Court that prisoners do not have voting rights under the Representation of People (RP) Act. This is not the first time that the constitutional validity of Section 62 (5) has been challenged.

In 1997, as part of the case Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union Of India And Others, the petitioner too argued that the sub-section violated Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution, and also of Article 21, as the “restriction placed on the right to vote denied dignity of life". But as of now, the law stands that, CONVICTS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Hope this answers your question!

Regards

Palak Singh

I concur with Mr. Palak Singh.

What are the facts, if any? Please do not post riddles.

Mr. Om Prakash! The forum and the Lawyers Club India website is as much for the students to have their academic queries resolved as it is for the querists with real-life issues! Not that an academic query is not a real-life issue. 

Please stop making your own rules and discouraging people from using the forum. As far as it is a legal query, it is made for this forum. You can refrain from answering if you want. There are moderators on the site to remove or alter a query that is not made for the forum!

First, you discourage the person, then you answer the question yourself and become a part of the thread. :|

They are not being 'Made to Act' as anyone. Answering a query or NOT is as much a right for the experts as asking a query is for the students. No one is forcing any expert to mandatorily tutor anyone on the forum. We all ask queries and answer them to help each other and share knowledge. When you answer a 'Non-Academic' query, is it any different than tutoring a person? Is it not free of cost? Is asking an academic or non-academic question in any way a loss to anyone on the forum? You left the querist without any guidance before, making sure that no one else answers him and then you suddenly start caring about him being misguided? Blasphemy? IDK. Weird hypocrisy? Yes! 

Mr. Om Prakash,

I understand your concern but what I have written in my answer is that in the case of Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Case) is that the petitioner had "CONTENDED" or "ARGUED" that s.62(5) is in violation of Article 14 and 21. 

The following is the direct quote from the judgement:

"The learned counsel contended that this is discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. lt was further contended by the learned counsel that there is violation also of Article 21 inasmuch as the restriction placed on the prisoner's right to vote by sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Act denies dignity of life."

Even though the petitioner had contended this, the SC still did not give the convicts the right to vote. 

If there is still any issue, please do let me know. 

Regard

Palak Singh