Debate on Voting as Fundamental Right

Constitutional and Judicial Background

1. Voting Rights Status:

   • Right to vote currently classified as a statutory right, not a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court of India.
   • Judicial precedence set by N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer (1952) reaffirmed this status, stating the right is created by statute.

2. Key Judgments:

   • Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal (1982): Reiterated voting as a statutory right.
   • Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006): Confirmed that while democracy is part of the Constitution's basic structure, the individual right to vote derives from legislation (Representation of the People Act).
   • Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): Established a right to know candidates' details under Article 19(1)(a), linking informed voting as a fundamental right.
   • People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2003): Distinguished voting as statutory but the freedom of choice, tied to informed decisions, is fundamental under Article 19(1)(a).
   • NOTA (None of the Above) Judgment (2013): Recognized rejection of candidates as a form of political expression under Article 19(1)(a), although voting remains statutory.

Recent Developments

1. Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023):
   • Justice Ajay Rastogi suggested recognizing voting as a fundamental right. The judgment pointed towards voting having constitutional qualities.

Constitutional Framework

1. Article 326:

   • Mandates elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies based on universal adult suffrage.
   • Grants every citizen aged 18 and over the right to register as an elector, emphasizing that this entitlement stems from the Constitution, not merely statutory law.

2. Basic Structure Doctrine:

   • Established by Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), asserting democracy's integral position in the Constitution necessitates that the right to vote should also be protected constitutionally, not just through statutory provisions.

Arguments for Constitutional Recognition

1. Incongruity in Current Status:
   • The distinction between voting as a statutory right versus a constitutional right has been blurred through evolving judicial interpretations, especially as various aspects of voting have been given constitutional protection.
   • The assertion that voting is part of the basic structure implies its constitutional protection should be prioritized to legitimize democracy.

Conclusion

• The debate emphasizes the discrepancy within India's constitutional framework regarding the voting right. The call for a constitutional endorsement of the voting right aligns with modern jurisprudence advocating for informed and active participation in democracy.
• The call to action focuses on ensuring the core right of eligible citizens to participate in democracy through voting is appropriately recognized in the Constitution, correcting the longstanding statutory treatise.