On October 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took a significant step in the ongoing debate over electoral rights by issuing notices to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks voting rights for undertrial prisoners. The PIL, filed by Sunita Sharma and represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, has sparked renewed conversation about the fairness and inclusivity of India’s electoral system, especially as it concerns the nation's vast prison population.
According to ANI, the petition highlights a pressing issue: about 500,000 undertrial prisoners—individuals who have not been convicted and are still awaiting trial—are currently denied the right to vote. The petition seeks not only to restore these rights but also to introduce practical measures such as setting up polling stations within prisons and providing postal ballots for those held outside their home constituencies or states. Importantly, the plea proposes that only prisoners convicted of corrupt practices or offences connected with elections should be excluded from voting, rather than imposing a blanket ban on all incarcerated individuals.
At the heart of the matter is Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently enforces a sweeping prohibition on voting by all prisoners, regardless of whether they have been convicted or are merely on trial. The petitioner’s argument, as reported by ANI, is that such a blanket ban is not only unjust but also out of step with democratic principles and international norms. The petition notes, “Furthermore, the blanket ban violates the universally recognised principle of the presumption of innocence. In India, over 75 per cent of prisoners are pre-trial or under-trial detainees, many of whom remain incarcerated for decades. In 80 to 90 per cent of cases, such individuals are ultimately acquitted, yet they are denied the fundamental democratic right to vote for decades.”
This legal challenge is buttressed by recent data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). According to the 2023 edition of 'Prison Statistics India,' 73.5 percent of all Indian prisoners are undertrial inmates. As of December 2023, there were 389,910 undertrials out of a total prison population of 530,333—a slight decrease from the previous year. The statistics underscore the scale of disenfranchisement: the majority of India’s incarcerated population has not been convicted of a crime, yet they are systematically excluded from participating in the world’s largest democracy.
The petition calls for judicial intervention to fill what it describes as a “legal vacuum” created by Section 62(5). It proposes that disenfranchisement should be restricted only after an individualized judicial determination, a final conviction for specific offences, or as part of a judicial sentence. This approach, the petitioner argues, would bring India in line with international democratic standards. The petition even points to neighboring Pakistan, where undertrial and pre-trial prisoners retain their right to vote, as an example of a more balanced policy.
While the Supreme Court’s notice marks a potential turning point, the debate over electoral fairness is not limited to the question of prisoner voting rights. On the same day, another controversy erupted over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) plans to implement the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal. According to IANS, Shiv Sena-UBT Member of Parliament Priyanka Chaturvedi raised strong objections to the process, alleging that it could be part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to manipulate voter lists and target pro-opposition voters.
Chaturvedi, speaking to IANS, stated, “The manner in which this process was implemented—and the fact that it reached the Supreme Court—proves that pro-opposition voters are being strategically eliminated. In Maharashtra, anonymous voter manipulation also took place, and the fight against it is still ongoing. Similar incidents were seen in Odisha, Haryana, and Delhi, where parties like the BJD and the Aam Aadmi Party were affected. If the same method is being used in West Bengal, it certainly looks like a calculated conspiracy. It raises serious doubts about the impartiality of the Election Commission. At this point, the ECI office might as well be merged with the BJP office; it would save money.”
Her remarks reflect a wider sense of mistrust among opposition parties regarding the ECI’s recent actions. The SIR process, which was previously implemented in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, has been controversial, with several opposition leaders alleging that it is being used to selectively remove names from voter rolls. Chaturvedi’s comments also touch on the broader political context, including turmoil within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Bihar and allegations that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has a pattern of forming alliances only to later undermine its partners. “What’s happening in Bihar is part of the BJP’s long-standing strategy. They first build alliances, only to dismantle them later. In Maharashtra, our party was allied with the BJP for 25 years. As soon as they lost power, they sabotaged us in a blatant violation of the Constitution—part of a shameful and despicable conspiracy. Similar tactics were used against Ram Vilas Paswan’s party and the Shiromani Akali Dal. This proves that the BJP is interested not in partnership, but in complete dominance,” she said.
The controversy over the ECI’s impartiality is not new, but the convergence of these two issues—prisoner disenfranchisement and alleged voter list manipulation—has brought India’s electoral processes under intense scrutiny. Critics argue that both issues point to a broader pattern of exclusion and centralization of power, while supporters of the status quo contend that measures like Section 62(5) are necessary to maintain the integrity of elections and prevent misuse of the system.
Chaturvedi’s remarks extended beyond domestic politics, as she also commented on India’s foreign policy in response to criticism from AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi over Prime Minister Modi’s praise for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She emphasized India’s longstanding support for a two-nation solution and noted, “India has consistently provided medical and food aid to the people of Gaza. It’s unfortunate that a negative narrative is being created around peace efforts.” She further addressed India’s relationship with Afghanistan, expressing concern about the Taliban’s restrictions on women and questioning the viability of long-term cooperation with a regime that suppresses basic rights. “As a nation that upholds democracy, the Constitution, and equality, India must question whether long-term cooperation is possible with a regime that suppresses women’s rights,” Chaturvedi stated.
The coming weeks are likely to see further debate and legal arguments as the Supreme Court considers the PIL on undertrial voting rights and as the ECI’s actions in West Bengal and other states come under the microscope. For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the institutions tasked with safeguarding India’s democracy—and on whether they can rise to the challenge of ensuring that every citizen’s voice is heard, regardless of circumstance.
As India stands at this crossroads, the nation’s commitment to democratic ideals faces a crucial test, one that will shape the character of its elections for years to come.
