Madras High Court dismissed detainee Hari Nadar plea to vote in 2026 Tamil Nadu elections. Bench led by S.A. Dharmadikari cited bar under Section 62(5) Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by detainee Hari Nadar, who sought permission to vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The Court reiterated that voting rights are barred for persons in custody, pointing to the explicit legal restriction under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The case was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan, which relied on the statutory bar to deny relief.
Factual Background:
The petition came in the context of the upcoming State Assembly elections. Nadar asked the Court to recognize his right to vote and also stated his intention to contest from the Alangulam constituency. He told the Court that he was lodged in Puzhal Central Prison.
He said he was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (commonly referred to as the Goondas Act) and was also a remand prisoner in multiple criminal cases. He further submitted that he had contested earlier elections and wished to participate again in the 2026 polls.
Proceeding Before High Court
Nadar argued that prison officials did not submit his nomination papers to the Returning Officer within the required period, leading to rejection of his nomination. He also claimed that, even after making representations, he was not allowed to vote either through postal voting or through any other arrangement inside the prison. He stressed that he had not been convicted in any of the cases and contended that denying him the vote infringed his constitutional rights.
The High Court rejected these arguments and clarified the law on prisoners’ voting rights. It held that the right to vote is not a fundamental right; rather, it is a statutory right that is limited by the provisions of the law. Relying on Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, the Bench observed that persons in custody including undertrial prisoners and those detained in judicial custody are barred from voting. It noted that the statute provides an exception only for persons under preventive detention, and that this exception cannot be broadened to cover other classes of prisoners.
The Court further referred to the safeguards applicable to preventive detention matters. It stated that, even for preventive detention detainees, voting can be facilitated only after their willingness is independently confirmed by the District Legal Services Authority. After such verification, prison authorities may transmit the required information as per election procedure. However, the Court emphasized that this process applies strictly to preventive detention detainees and not to undertrial prisoners or other categories.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that Nadar who was in custody and also involved in ongoing criminal proceedings was not entitled either to vote or to seek prison-based arrangements to participate in the election. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of legal merit.
The decision highlights the ongoing balance in India between individual desire to take part in elections and the statutory limits placed on voting rights, reaffirming that electoral participation depends on legislative provisions rather than being an unrestricted constitutional right.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES