Madras High Court has asserted that while voting is an essential civic duty, citizens cannot be compelled to exercise their franchise. This decision reaffirms the delicate balance between promoting electoral participation and respecting individual liberties.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has asserted that while voting is an essential civic duty, citizens cannot be compelled to exercise their franchise. The ruling came from the bench led by Chief Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, highlighting the distinction between encouraging democratic participation and imposing it.
Also Read- Former State Government Lawyer Accused In Rape Case Granted Bail By Kerala HC (lawchakra.in)
The case arose when B Ramkumar Adityan petitioned for mandatory proof of voting to be required for employees seeking paid leave on election day. According to section 135B of the Representation of People Act, employees are entitled to a paid holiday to facilitate their voting rights. However, Adityan argued that there should be a system to verify whether employees actually use this leave for voting, as non-participation undermines the spirit of democracy.
The High Court, however, found no legal grounding to enforce such a mandate.
“This is a fanciful issue and there is no law that enables the court to pass such an order,”
the bench remarked, emphasizing the absence of a legal framework to enforce voting among citizens. The court maintained that voting is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, echoing the Supreme Court’s stance. As such, while employees can avail of a paid holiday for voting, demanding proof of voting as a condition infringes upon personal freedoms.
This decision reaffirms the delicate balance between promoting electoral participation and respecting individual liberties. While the court encourages citizens to fulfill their electoral duties, it recognizes that compulsory measures are beyond its legal ambit. The plea, filed as a public interest writ petition, was ultimately dismissed, leaving the existing electoral encouragement mechanisms intact without imposing punitive or coercive measures.
This ruling has broader implications for employers and employees, highlighting the importance of understanding electoral rights and the limitations of enforcing civic duties. The Madras High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the nuanced nature of democratic rights and the careful considerations that must be taken when attempting to legislate civic participation.
