Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hari Nadar, an undertrial prisoner confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India and other respondents to permit him to vote in the Assembly Elections, 2026 through postal ballot. The petitioner claimed that a false and politically motivated case was foisted against him under Act 14/1982, and he was detained since 22.01.2026. He had contested as an independent candidate for the Alangulam Legislative Assembly constituency, but his nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer. On 30.03.2026, he submitted a representation to the prison authorities requesting arrangements to vote, but no action was taken. The legal issue was whether an undertrial prisoner has the right to vote, given Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disqualifies persons confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment. The court analyzed that Section 62(5) applies only to convicts serving a sentence, not to undertrials. The court relied on the principle that the right to vote is a constitutional right under Article 326, and the Election Commission has the power to provide for postal ballot under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The court held that the petitioner's right to vote is not extinguished and directed the respondents to consider his representation and permit him to vote through postal ballot. The writ petition was allowed with directions to the Election Commission and prison authorities to facilitate the voting process.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Vote - Undertrial Prisoner - Article 326, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 62(5) - The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, sought to vote via postal ballot in Assembly Elections. The court held that Section 62(5) of the RP Act disqualifies only persons confined under a sentence of imprisonment, not undertrials. Therefore, the petitioner's right to vote is not extinguished. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and permit him to vote through postal ballot. (Paras 2-6) B) Election Law - Postal Ballot for Prisoners - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Rule 18 - The court noted that the Election Commission has the power to make provisions for postal ballot for certain categories of voters. Since the petitioner is an undertrial and not a convict, he is entitled to vote. The court directed the respondents to make necessary arrangements for the petitioner to cast his vote through postal ballot. (Paras 4-6) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct the Election Commission and prison authorities to facilitate the petitioner's voting. The court held that the right to vote is a constitutional right and the authorities cannot deny it arbitrarily. The writ petition was allowed with directions. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an undertrial prisoner confined in prison is entitled to vote in elections through postal ballot, and whether the Election Commission is obligated to consider his representation in this regard.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2026 and permit him to cast his vote through postal ballot in the Assembly Elections, 2026. The respondents shall make necessary arrangements forthwith.
Law Points
- Right to vote is a constitutional right under Article 326
- Section 62(5) of RP Act applies only to persons confined under a sentence of imprisonment
- undertrial prisoners retain right to vote
- writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce fundamental right
- representation must be considered by authorities
