New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding penalties for citizens skipping elections.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi rejected Ajay Goel’s petition, which called for punishing non-voters by denying them government benefits.
During n the hearing, the court raised serious doubts over enforcing mandatory voting, citing its impracticality and clash with constitutional norms amid India’s varied socio-economic landscape, Bar & Bench reported.
To drive home the issue, CJI Kant pointed out judicial constraints as an example.
“If we accept this, then my brother Justice Bagchi has to go to West Bengal and vote, though it’s a working day,” said the CJI.
The judges probed the fallout of fining those opting out of voting.
“So should we direct their arrest etc? In a country which is governed by rule of law and believes in democracy, and we have shown for 75 years how we trust and believe it, so all are expected to go. If they don’t go, they don’t go. So all is needed is awareness. But we cannot compel,” noted CJI Kant.
The court stressed economic hardships driving absenteeism, not just disinterest.
“If a person who is poor and says I will earn my wages, so how do I vote… what should we say?”
The petitioner’s counsel insisted on curbs to boost turnout, proposing bans on benefits for non-voters. This did not convince the court.
“App yeh kaam hamare taraf se kar lijiye (you do this for us),” CJI Kant replied.
Upholding that force undermines democracy, the court said penalising non-voters falls under legislative and executive policy.
Dismissing the PIL, the top court allowed the petitioner to seek redress from suitable forums or entities.
