An external view of the Indian court. | Photo Credit: File
On Friday (October 10, 2025), the Supreme Court was looking for answers from the Union government and the Indian Election Commission to a petition that challenges the blanket of the disqualification of prisoners, including the underlines and detained pre -school proceedings who were not convicted of the exercise of voting law.
The bench of the chief judge India Brvai and the Justice K. Vinod Chandrani heard the lawsuit filed by the defense attorney Sunita Sharma, who urged the court to invent a framework that allowed more determined and individualized determination instead of a sweeping ban. The petition suggested that the restrictions be limited to individuals convicted of specified crimes or in matters over a certain duration.
Attorney Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, said that the limitation affects almost 4.5 lakh prisoners throughout India, the vast majority of which are subging. “It is also feasible to facilitate the vote of local imprisoned voters – through polling stations within approximately 1,350 prisons at a national level and via postal ballots by international voters,” the petition said.
The application claimed that, although persons imprisoned for corrupt practices or election offenses are excluded, a large number of supports and detained pre -school proceedings are still unjustly deprived of their franchise. He also noted that, according to the 1950s Act, the Voting Law is dependent on the inclusion in the election role and § 16 para. C) sets out disqualification for only two reasons – convicted for corrupt practices or crimes. Disqualification can also arise due to or unhealthy mind.
Mrs. Sharma questioned the justification of the dismissal of the undergrowth on voting rights, and at the same time allowed even the convicted individuals to attack the elections, and asked, “So how can ordinary citizens who have not been declared or determined as convicted, rejected the right to vote and choose their own representatives?”
The petition referred to Section 62 (5) of the Act of 1950, which disqualifies any person from the vote when it is limited in prison, whether under the imprisonment, transport or legal police links. He acknowledged that the constitutional validity of this provision was complied with in the 1997 decision in the Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. The Indian Union, where the Supreme Court ruled that voting law is legal and is subject to legislation.
However, the application argued that this position developed after the 2023 decision in ANOOP Baranwal v. Indian Union, in which the constitutional bench recommended the creation of a high -performance committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the chief judge of India and the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha to appoint the Chief Commissioner and Election Commissioner. In this judgment, the court also acknowledged voting rights as the fundamental right pursuant to Part III of the Constitution.
“Prerequisite of violence”
The application further noted that, according to the Indian Criminal Code, there is no such restriction, now replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Referring to international practice, it noted that most democratic countries do not impose a flat prohibition of voting rights of prisoners and, if there are restrictions, are based on individualized court determination, seriousness of the crime or the duration of the sentence.
“Moreover, the general prohibition violates the generally recognized principle of assumption. In India, more than 75% of prisoners are before court proceedings or supportive detention, many of which remain imprisoned for years. In 80 to 90% of cases, individuals are eventually exempted but rejected for decades.
The petition, which quoted data on the Office of National Crime Records of 2022, stressed that approximately 77% of the Indian prison population includes subgushes, while the degree of convictions for the total offenses of IPC is only 8.55%. He claims that he denies such a large proportion of citizens of their electoral franchise, undermining the spirit and intention of the constitution.
The court published this matter for further hearing after four weeks.
Published – October 10, 2025 21:20
