The Kerala High Court ruled that voters cannot be disqualified based on mental health assumptions without a formal judicial declaration of unsoundness of mind. The judgment reinforces voting rights and rejects segregated polling for rehabilitation centre residents.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a ruling reinforcing the electoral rights of persons with mental illness or those residing in rehabilitation centres, the Kerala High Court has held that individuals cannot be disqualified from voting merely on assumptions regarding their mental condition. The Court clarified that under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, disqualification on the ground of “unsoundness of mind” is permissible only when supported by a formal judicial declaration.
The judgment was delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who dismissed a writ petition seeking to segregate votes or use a separate voting machine for certain residents of a mental health rehabilitation centre.
ALSO READ: Voting Rights of 5 Lakh Undertrial Prisoners in India: Supreme Court Issues Notice
What Petition Seeks
The petitioners had approached the High Court alleging that several residents of a rehabilitation facility in their municipal ward were mentally challenged and lacked the capacity to vote independently. They sought either:
- removal of such persons from the electoral roll, or
- permission for them to cast their votes on a separate electronic voting machine (EVM).
Although the Election Registration Officer removed one deceased individual’s name from the roll, the officer found no legal basis to delete the names of other residents. Dissatisfied, the petitioners moved the High Court. Notably, the individuals whose capacity was being questioned and the institution housing them were not made parties to the petition.
What Court Held
Justice Kunhikrishnan examined Section 74(1)(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act, emphasizing that:
“A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court… That is the only disqualification mentioned in the Act 1994.”
The Court stressed that no person can be denied the right to vote merely on presumptions or subjective assessments of mental ability.
Turning to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Court referred to:
- Section 2(s) – defining mental illness
- Section 3 – clarifying what constitutes mental illness
- Section 4 – presumption of mental capacity
The Bench underscored the Act’s legal position that every person, including those with mental illness, is presumed to have the capacity to make decisions, unless proven otherwise through statutory assessment.
The Court highlighted that mental illness is not equivalent to legal incapacity and cannot justify separate voting procedures without evidence.
Observing that electoral rules do not allow a separate category of voters based on unverified mental health conditions, the Court refused to direct the Election Commission to:
- segregate votes, or
- provide a separate EVM.
Additionally, the Court noted a procedural defect: the challenged individuals and the institution were not impleaded, preventing the Court from making any determination about their competence.
Finding no statutory grounds to justify the petitioners’ claims, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition. The ruling reinforces the principle that voting rights are fundamental and cannot be restricted without due legal process.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Joseph T John
Respondents: Advocate Deepu Lal Mohan, Special Government Pleader Deepa KR
Case Title:
Jomon Jacob & Another v. State Election Commission & Others
WP(C) NO. 42170 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
