RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRISONERS

               RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRISONERS 

PRISONER IS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 3 OF  PRISONER SECURITY ACT 1894 , PRISONER IS SOMEBODY WHO IS KEPT IN CUSTODY , FOR THE CRIME HE /SHE COMMITTED WHICH VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE LAND , THE CRIME CAN BE PETTY AS WELL AS HEINOUS IT DEPENDS ON THE INTENSITY OF THE WRONG ACT (CRIME) . PRISONERS ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST KEPT IN PRISON FOR THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED . ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF PRISONERS STATISTICS 2018 THERE ARE 4,68,094 PRISONERS IN THE NATION OUT OF WHICH 1,40,000 ARE CONVICTS WHEREAS 3,28,094 ARE UNDER TRIAL .

THERE IS A LONG DEEP BATTLE FOR THE DEMAND OF RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRISONERS , IN THE CONTEMPORARY SCENARIO THREE LAW STUDENTS FILED A PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION WHICH BROUGHT THIS ISSUE AGAIN IN PUBLIC LIMELITE . 

RIGHT TO VOTE 

RIGHT TO VOTE IS MENTIONED IN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE’S ACT 1956 , WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ON THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THEIR FAVOURITE CANDIDATE AND CASTE THEIR VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WHOM THEY FIND MOST CAPABLE OF TAKING THEIR MATTERS IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY . 

SECTION 62 OF THE ACT ENHANCES AND DISCUSSES ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO CAST VOTE . 

1. A PERSON CAN CAST VOTE ONCE 

2. A PERSON CAN CAST VOTE ONLY IN A CERTAIN CONSTITUENCY 

3. THEY MUST NOT FALL FOR THE BRIBERY AND FRAUDS 

4. ONE VOTE FOR ONE REPRESANTATIVE NO MORE THAN ONE REPRESENTATIVE CAN BE CHOSEN . 

5. NO PERSON WHO IS IN PRISON CAN BE CONFINED TO VOTE . 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF RIGHT TO VOTE 

1. RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT THE FUNDAMRENTAL RIGHT 

2. IT IS MENTIONED UNDER A STATUTE , REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE’S ACT 1956 , WHICH MAKES IT A STATUTORY RIGHT THAT MEANS IT’S POWER CAN BE LOWERED BY THE STATUTE . IT IS THEREFORE NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT RATHER A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT . 

3. IT IS A CIVIL RIGHT WHICH HAS NO STRENGTH TO BE CALLED A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT . 

4. IN THE CASE OF NP PONNUSWAMI VS RETURNING OFFICER , IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT RATHER IT IS JUST A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT , DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 326 WHICH MAKES IT NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT . 

RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRISONER 

IN THE CASE OF ANUKUL PRADHAN VS UNION OF INDIA SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE DECISION AND VALIDITY OF SECTION 62(5) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE’S ACT AND MADE IT LUCID THAT IT IS NOT THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 AND 14 . 

IN THE CASE OF PARAMVIR KUMAR CHAUDHARY VS ELECTION COMMISION . THE COURT UPHELD THE DECISION AND THE PREVIOUS SET PRECEDENTS REGARDING THE MATTER AND ILLUMINATED ABOUT THE COMPLICATIONS AND THE PROBLREMS THAT MIGHT BE FACED BY THE COUNTRY TO ALLOW PRISONERS RIGHT TO VOTE . 

CONCLUSION 

IN INDIA THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE GRANTED TO THE PRISONER , IT IS A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT , BUT THIS RIGHT IS NOT OF SUCH A HIGH VALUE THAT IT WILL IMPACT THE PERSON . IN THE BROAD SENSE IF THERE WOULD BE A DEBATE ON THE MATTER THEN THERE ARE CONTENTIONS IN THE FAVOUR OF BOTH THE PARTIES FOR AND AGAINST , BUT IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO AND IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE IT SEEMS THAT THIS VOGUE WILL CONTINUE AND THE DENIAL WILL REMAIN . IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRISONERS CAN PROVE TO BE FATAL FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRACY AS IT WILL ATTRACT A LOT OF NUISANCE AND PROBLEMS , DUE TO LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRAVEEN CHOUDHARY VS ELECTION COMMISSION CASE .