By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a PIL challenging the validity of a provision of the Representation of People Act which bars a prisoner from voting.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi took note of the submissions of lawyer Zoheb Hossain and issued notices to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the poll panel.
The plea was filed in 2019 by Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya, then a student of the National Law University, challenging the Constitutional validity of section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act which prohibits a jailed person from casting vote in elections.
The bench has fixed the PIL for further hearing on December 29.
“No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force,” reads the impugned provision of the Act.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a PIL challenging the validity of a provision of the Representation of People Act which bars a prisoner from voting.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi took note of the submissions of lawyer Zoheb Hossain and issued notices to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the poll panel.
The plea was filed in 2019 by Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya, then a student of the National Law University, challenging the Constitutional validity of section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act which prohibits a jailed person from casting vote in elections.
The bench has fixed the PIL for further hearing on December 29.
“No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force,” reads the impugned provision of the Act.
