Delhi High Court categorically refused a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make voting compulsory in the Parliament and State Assembly elections. The court said that casting vote is a matter of choice and the judiciary cannot pass such directions.
The bench of Justice Satish Chander Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on Friday also said, “casting vote is their (eligible citizen of India for voting) right, their choice”. Noting the court’s observation, then the petitioner decided to withdraw the petition.
The petition was filed by Ashwini Kumar who is a practicing Advocate and BJP leader.
The petition was filed stating that low voters turnout is a persistent problem in India. Making voting a compulsory act can help increase the voter turnout. It guarantees that each and every citizen has a vote and that the government reflects the desires of the people. The government is more responsible to the people and is more apt to act in their best interests when voter turnout is high. Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully in countries like Australia, Belgium, and Brazil. These countries have seen significant increases in voter turnout and improvements in the quality of democracy, stated the plea.
The Supreme Court and High Court have previously instructed the Election Commission to exercise its powers under Article 324 with regard to the supervision, direction, and control of the conduct of elections to Parliament and the State legislatures in order to address violations of fundamental rights and to protect the integrity of the electoral process. There is a good reason for the Court to take action for a simultaneous election, the plea said. Under Article 326 of the Constitution, the ability to vote is recognized as a fundamental right. The law may reasonably place limitations on this right. As a reasonable restriction to ensure that democracy runs smoothly, mandatory voting can be enacted. The right to vote is a statutory right, and the government has the authority to place reasonable limitations on this right, the Supreme Court has further ruled, according to the plea.
