Chief Election Commissioner v Jan Chaukidar (2013)
Prisoners, voting rights, and the clash between Parliament and the Supreme Court.
Quick Summary
This case is about whether people who are in prison or in police custody can vote and can stand as candidates in elections in India.
An NGO called Jan Chaukidar filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Patna High Court after reports of serious election malpractices in Bihar. The High Court said that a person in prison (other than under preventive detention) cannot vote and also cannot contest elections.
The Chief Election Commissioner challenged this in the Supreme Court. On 10 July 2013, the Supreme Court agreed with the Patna High Court. It used Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to say: if you cannot vote, you are not an elector, and if you are not an elector, you cannot be a candidate.
Parliament did not like the effect of this ruling. Within three months, it passed an amendment to change the law and to give it retrospective effect from the date of the Supreme Court judgment. Later, the Delhi High Court upheld this amendment in another PIL.
So, the Supreme Court tried to restrict prisoners from contesting elections, but Parliament changed the law and practically neutralised the judgment. This shows a strong tug-of-war between the Court and Parliament on the question of democracy and criminalisation of politics.
Issues
- Whether a person who is in prison or in police custody (other than under preventive detention) can vote in elections under Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
- If such a person cannot vote, whether they can still be treated as an “elector” and contest elections as a candidate.
- Whether Section 62(5) violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty), especially for undertrials who are not yet convicted.
- After the Supreme Court judgment, whether Parliament can validly change the law with retrospective effect to undo the consequences of the judgment.
Rules (Law Applied)
- Section 4(d): To be qualified for election to the Lok Sabha, a person must be an elector.
- “Elector” basically means a person whose name is on the electoral roll and who has the right to vote.
- Section 62(5): A person who is in prison or in lawful police custody cannot vote. The only exception is a person kept under preventive detention.
- So, normally, a prisoner or an undertrial in custody cannot cast a vote.
- Article 14: Right to equality and reasonable classification. Any law that creates a class (like prisoners) must have an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object.
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which can only be restricted by a just, fair, and reasonable law.
- The challengers argued that treating undertrials and convicted prisoners in the same way goes against the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
The Supreme Court treated the right to vote as a statutory right, not as a fundamental right. Therefore, the Court said that Parliament can give this right by law and can also take it away by law, subject to basic constitutional limits.
Facts – Timeline Style
During the 2004 Bihar elections, many malpractices were reported. There was serious concern about the fairness of the electoral process.
An NGO named Jan Chaukidar filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 in the Patna High Court. The NGO raised the issue of people in prison or in police custody contesting elections.
The Patna High Court held that persons who are in prison or in police custody (other than preventive detention) cannot vote and also cannot stand for elections. Their right to be an elector and a candidate both go.
The Chief Election Commissioner challenged the Patna High Court ruling before the Supreme Court. The case became a key test for the interpretation of Section 62(5) RPA, 1951.
The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court view: a person who cannot vote under Section 62(5) cannot be considered an elector, and therefore cannot contest elections.
Parliament passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013. It added a proviso to Section 62 saying that a person whose name remains on the electoral roll is still an elector even if his right to vote is temporarily suspended while in prison.
The Amendment was given retrospective effect from 10 July 2013, the date of the Supreme Court judgment. This meant that the practical effect of the Supreme Court ruling was neutralised from day one.
A fresh PIL challenged the validity of the Amendment Act. The Delhi High Court upheld the amendment and warned that if simple arrest could bar a person from contesting elections, ruling parties could misuse this and send rivals to jail just to keep them out of politics.
Arguments – Appellant vs Respondent
Appellant – Chief Election Commissioner
- Section 62(5) clearly says that a person in prison or in police custody cannot vote, except a person in preventive detention.
- If such a person has no right to vote, he cannot be treated as an “elector” under Section 4(d) of the RPA, 1951.
- If he is not an elector, he cannot fulfil the qualification to contest elections. So he cannot stand as a candidate.
- The restriction is linked to the person’s own conduct which led to his detention, and this is a reasonable restriction in a democracy.
Respondent – Jan Chaukidar & Others
- Undertrials have not yet been convicted. Treating them like convicted prisoners and denying them the right to vote and contest is unfair and violates the presumption of innocence.
- Section 62(5) groups together all prisoners, without distinguishing between serious and minor offences, or between undertrials and convicts. This is not a reasonable classification under Article 14.
- Denying political participation to such a large group of people affects the quality of democracy and may violate Article 21.
- Harsh disqualification may be misused to keep political rivals out of elections by arresting them and keeping them in custody.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court decision. It agreed that a person in prison or in police custody, other than someone under preventive detention, cannot vote under Section 62(5) of the RPA, 1951.
The Court reasoned that the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. Because it comes from statute, Parliament can decide who gets this right and under what conditions it can be denied.
The Court then joined the dots in a simple way:
- If you cannot vote, you are not an “elector”.
- If you are not an elector, you do not meet the qualification to contest elections.
- Therefore, a prisoner or a person in police custody cannot stand for elections while he is in custody.
On the constitutional challenge, the Court rejected the argument that Section 62(5) violates Articles 14 and 21. It saw the restriction on prisoners as a valid legislative choice linked to their loss of liberty due to their own conduct.
Ratio (Core Principle)
The core legal rule laid down by the Supreme Court can be stated in simple words:
When a person is in prison or in lawful police custody (other than under preventive detention), his right to vote is suspended under Section 62(5) of the RPA, 1951. A person who cannot vote is not an elector, and a person who is not an elector cannot stand as a candidate in elections.
In other words, loss of voting right while in custody automatically leads to loss of the right to contest elections during that period.
Why It Matters
This case is a landmark for two big reasons: prisoners’ political rights and the power struggle between Parliament and the Supreme Court.
- On one side, the Supreme Court wanted to keep the electoral field clean by stopping people in custody from contesting elections.
- On the other side, Parliament feared that such a strict rule could be misused. A ruling party might get an opponent arrested and keep him in custody just to block him from contesting.
- The Amendment Act, 2013 tried to solve this by saying: a person in prison cannot vote, but if his name is on the electoral roll, he is still an elector and can contest elections.
- The Delhi High Court supported this approach and warned against “vendetta politics”, where criminal law is used as a tool to remove rivals from the ballot.
Today, the case is important in debates on criminalisation of politics, purity of elections, and the limits of legislative power to undo Supreme Court decisions.
Key Takeaways
- The right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
- Under Section 62(5), a person in prison or in police custody cannot vote, except a person under preventive detention.
- The Supreme Court linked voting with candidature: no vote → not an elector → cannot be a candidate.
- Parliament reacted quickly with the Amendment and Validation Act, 2013, saying that such a person remains an elector if his name is on the electoral roll, even though he cannot vote.
- The amendment was given retrospective effect, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s judgment from the date it was given.
- The Delhi High Court upheld the amendment, highlighting the danger of arrest being used to keep rivals out of elections.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Think of a big sign on the jail gate that reads “JAIL VOTE BAR”.
- JAIL – Person is in prison or custody.
- VOTE – Section 62(5) says no voting (except preventive detention).
- BAR – Bar on contesting elections because no vote → not elector → not candidate.
- Step 1 – Lock the Ballot: Imagine a prisoner holding a locked ballot box. He cannot open it. This is Section 62(5) – no vote.
- Step 2 – Cut the Name: Now imagine his name getting faded from the “candidate list” because he is not treated as an elector anymore.
- Step 3 – Parliament’s Eraser: Finally, imagine Parliament using a big eraser to remove the effect of the Supreme Court decision by writing a new proviso and backdating it.
IRAC Outline
I – Issue
Can a person in prison or in lawful police custody, except a person under preventive detention, vote and contest elections? Does Section 62(5) validly restrict these rights or does it violate Articles 14 and 21?
R – Rule
Section 62(5) of the RPA, 1951 bars prisoners and persons in police custody from voting (except preventive detention). To be a candidate, one must be an elector under Section 4(d). The right to vote is a statutory right, controlled by Parliament.
A – Application
The Court connected these provisions in a chain: a person in prison cannot vote, so he is not an elector, so he fails the qualification to stand as a candidate. The challenge under Articles 14 and 21 was rejected, as prisoners form a separate class based on loss of liberty due to their own conduct.
C – Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld Section 62(5) and held that prisoners and persons in police custody (other than preventive detention) cannot vote and, by extension, cannot contest elections. Parliament later changed the law with retrospective effect to allow such persons to contest elections if their names remained on the electoral roll.
Glossary – Important Terms
| Elector | A person whose name is on the electoral roll and who has the right to vote in an election. |
| Section 62(5), RPA 1951 | A provision that says a person in prison or in lawful police custody cannot vote, except a person under preventive detention. |
| Preventive Detention | Detaining a person not as punishment for a past offence but to prevent future harm, for example to maintain public order. Such detainees are treated differently from convicts. |
| Retrospective Effect | When a new law is made applicable from a date in the past, as if it had been in force from that earlier date. |
| Vendetta Politics | Using criminal cases, arrests, or investigations as a tool to target and silence political rivals, instead of as neutral law enforcement. |
| Public Interest Litigation (PIL) | A case filed in court by a person or an organisation to protect the public interest, even when the petitioner is not directly affected personally. |
FAQs – Student-Friendly Doubts
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now