This paper examines international human-rights standards on the right to vote and compares them with Indian statutory and judicial practice. International instruments and expert bodies (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Human Rights Committee guidance, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), and regional jurisprudence such as the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings) set strong norms favoring universal suffrage and require any restriction to be provided by law, necessary and proportionate. India’s law — chiefly Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — effectively imposes a blanket ban on voting by persons confined in prison on the date of an election; Indian courts have upheld this statutory rule. The paper argues that India’s blanket exclusion raises serious concerns under international standards and recommends realistic, rights-based reforms (pilot special polling, absentee voting for eligible prisoners, including undertrials, clearer rules distinguishing pre-trial detainees from convicted prisoners, and better data collection).
Prisoners’ voting rights; universal suffrage; ICCPR Article 25; General Comment 25; Representation of the People Act 1951; Section 62(5); Anukul Chandra Pradhan; Hirst v UK; Nelson Mandela Rules; Venice Commission.
. International Standards Vs. Indian Practice: A Comparative Study of Prisoners' Voting Rights. Indian Journal of Modern Research and Reviews. 2025; 3(9):104-107
Download PDF
