To vote is a ‘valuable constitutional right’ but not absolute: Supreme Court in SIR verdict

THe unity of republic depends as a great deal on the comprehension of eligible voters as on the exclusion of those non legally entitled to vote, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it underscored the constitutional importance of the right to vote while upholding the Election Commission’s special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.In a significant articulation on the nature of franchise in India’s constitutional framework, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that although the right to vote is “a valuable constitutional right” fundamental to democratic governance, it is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulatory conditions aimed at preserving the purity and accuracy of electoral rolls.“The integrity of the franchise is as much dependent upon the inclusion of eligible voters as it is upon the exclusion of those who are not so entitled,” stated the 124-page judgment while rejecting challenges to SIR initiated by ECI under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.‘Foundational importance’ of electoral rollsThe court said that the maintenance of an accurate and credible electoral roll was of “foundational importance” to the democratic process because representative governance rests upon the correctness and integrity of electoral rolls.“The integrity of elections is inextricably linked to the correctness of the electoral roll, and any systemic distortion therein strikes at the very root of representative governance,” it held.Voting right is constitutionalThe judgment assumes importance for its detailed constitutional formulation of the right to vote, particularly against the backdrop of an evolving judicial debate over whether voting rights are purely statutory or enjoy constitutional protection.Referring to the Constitution bench decision in the Section 6A Citizenship Act case delivered last year, the court reiterated that the right to vote under Article 326 was no longer viewed merely as a statutory right but had acquired the status of a constitutional right through judicial interpretation.Quoting extensively from the Constitution bench ruling authored by justice Kant, the court recalled that the issue was “finally laid to rest” in the judgment in Rajbala Vs State of Haryana (2015), where the Supreme Court held that the right to vote under Article 326 is a constitutional right subject to limitations prescribed by law.“It may thus be seen that with the aid of judicial construction in the context of the nature of the right to vote, it has been upgraded from being a mere statutory right to a constitutional right,” the judgment noted.Verification and safeguardsAt the same time, the bench clarified that the constitutional guarantee of universal adult franchise under Articles 325 and 326 necessarily contemplates mechanisms of verification, identification and periodic revision of electoral rolls.According to the court, procedural requirements such as proof of identity, verification of ordinary residence and confirmation of eligibility cannot by themselves be treated as unconstitutional burdens on voting rights. “Such conditions are intrinsic to the very preservation of that right, for they ensure that the electoral roll remains confined to those who are lawfully entitled to be included,” the judgment said.The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that SIR disproportionately burdened voters by compelling them to repeatedly establish citizenship or eligibility despite already being enrolled in electoral rolls.The bench held that requiring electors to furnish one among several prescribed documents, coupled with multiple opportunities to rectify omissions and challenge exclusions, did not amount to a disproportionate restriction on voting rights. “It must, therefore, be recognised that a measure aimed at refining and correcting the electoral roll, even if it entails certain compliance requirements on the part of electors, does not ipso facto infringe the right to vote,” the court added.No case of mass disenfranchisementThe judgment repeatedly stressed that the relevant constitutional test was not whether some hardship or exclusion may arise during implementation, but whether the overall framework incorporated adequate safeguards against arbitrary disenfranchisement. The court pointed to safeguards such as notice before exclusion, opportunities to respond, appellate remedies and judicial review, holding that the framework reflected a “calibrated approach wherein the right to vote is regulated, but not abrogated”.The court also rejected claims of mass disenfranchisement arising from SIR, holding that post-exercise data placed before it did not reveal exclusions “so widespread or systemic” as to demonstrate constitutional infirmity in the design of the process. “Individual cases of exclusion may arise, but they are addressable within the framework of claims, objections and appeals,” the bench said.The court ultimately concluded that SIR satisfied the constitutional test of proportionality because the measures adopted by ECI bore a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring accurate electoral rolls, were not manifestly excessive, and were accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.