THE INDIAN POSITION: CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

AUTHOR – KHUSHBOO RAJ, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – KHUSHBOO RAJ, THE INDIAN POSITION: CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (6) OF 2026, PG. 459-471, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

This chapter examines the constitutional and legal framework that regulates voting rights in India, with a particular emphasis on the prohibition of undertrial prisoners from voting. Universal adult suffrage is guaranteed by Article 326 of the Indian Constitution; however, the right to vote is not acknowledged as a fundamental right. Rather, it regards the right to vote as a statutory entitlement that is primarily regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to Section 62(5) of the Act, individuals who are incarcerated, including those who are presumed innocent and are currently under trial, are prohibited from voting.

The chapter critically evaluates constitutional provisions, statutory law, and judicial interpretations to determine whether disenfranchisement is in accordance with the principles of equality under Article 14, personal liberty under Article 21, and democratic participation. It demonstrates the injustice of denying voting rights to prisoners who are still awaiting trial, which is in direct opposition to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” “It also demonstrates the injustice of granting exceptions for preventive detention.”

This chapter demonstrates that Indian courts have augmented the fundamental rights of prisoners in areas such as dignity and a prompt trial by examining case law and comparing it to that of other countries. Nevertheless, they have adhered to the legislature’s decision regarding voting rights. Information from Tihar Jail is also included in the chapter, which demonstrates that a significant number of undertrial prisoners are unaware of their voting rights and are more concerned with matters such as bail and trial delays.

The research reveals that the present legal framework results in a democratic deficit by obstructing a significant portion of the population from voting. It also urges a reassessment of existing laws in accordance with international human rights standards and constitutional values.

The constitution and laws that govern voting rights in India demonstrate how democratic ideals and laws interact in complex ways. Although the Indian Constitution recognizes political participation as a fundamental component of representative democracy, the right to vote is not recognized as a fundamental right. Instead, it holds a distinct place in the legal system because it is recognized by the constitution, governed by the law, and limited by the courts.

This chapter examines how Indian constitutional provisions, laws, and court decisions all interact to affect citizens’ voting rights, with a focus on those who are in jail pending trial. It examines whether the current system is consistent with constitutional protections for equality, personal freedom, and democratic participation, or whether it exacerbates the democratic deficit by excluding a large group of people who have not been convicted of a crime.