The Supreme Court of India refused to hear a PIL seeking compulsory voting, calling it a policy matter beyond judicial powers. The Court stressed that democracy depends on awareness, not force, and rejected penalties for non-voters.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday refused to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that asked for voting to be made compulsory across the country. The Court clearly stated that such decisions fall under the “policy domain” and cannot be enforced by the judiciary.
A bench led by Chief Justice Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, advised the petitioner Ajay Goel to take up his concerns with the appropriate authorities and stakeholders instead of approaching the Court.
The petition had requested the Court to make voting mandatory and also suggested imposing penalties on people who do not vote. It further asked for guidelines to restrict government benefits for citizens who deliberately choose not to vote. However, the Court refused to entertain these demands, saying such issues involve policymaking and are beyond judicial powers.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice emphasized that democracy works better through awareness and voluntary participation rather than force. He said,
“In a country which is governed by the rule of law and believes in democracy, and where we have shown for 75 years how we trust and believe in it, everyone is expected to go (and vote). If they don’t go, they don’t go. What is needed is awareness, but we cannot compel,”
the CJI said.
When the petitioner suggested that the Court should direct the Election Commission to limit government benefits for non-voters, the Chief Justice questioned the practicality and fairness of such a step. He said,
“Should we direct their arrest? If a citizen doesn’t go for voting, what can we do,”
the CJI asked.
ALSO READ: Bar Council Of Delhi Issues Notice On Identity Cards Required For February 2026 Elections
The bench also pointed out the real-life difficulties in implementing compulsory voting. It observed that on election days, many people, including judges, have important duties to perform. Highlighting this, the Chief Justice remarked,
“If we accept this, then my brother Justice Bagchi would have to go to West Bengal to vote even though it is a working day,” the CJI said. Supporting this concern, Justice Bagchi added, “Judicial work is also important,”
Justice Bagchi said.
The Court further showed concern for economically weaker sections of society, noting that daily wage earners may not always be able to afford taking time off to vote. The bench raised an important question, saying,
“If a person who is poor says, ‘I need to earn my wages, how do I vote?’ what should we say to them?”
the bench asked.
Despite the petitioner’s insistence that the Election Commission should form a committee to suggest restrictions on those who do not vote, the Court remained firm in its view. It concluded by stating,
“We are afraid these issues lie in the policy domain,”
the CJI said.
This decision once again highlights the Court’s consistent stand that matters involving governance policies, especially those affecting citizens’ rights and duties, must be decided by the legislature and executive, not imposed through judicial orders.
Click Here to Read More On Mandatory Voting
