Court relies on Section 62 of Representation of the People Act; says prison custody bars voting rights despite Article 326 claim
The Madras High Court dismissed a plea by a detainee who sought permission to vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The Court held that statutory law bars persons in prison custody from voting.
Hari Nadar, who is lodged in Puzhal Central Prison, filed the petition. He asked the Court to direct the Election Commission of India to allow him to vote either through postal ballot or in person in the upcoming elections.
According to the petitioner, authorities remanded him in January 2026. They also detained him under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
He argued that, since no court had finally convicted him, his continued custody should not affect his right to vote or contest elections.
The petitioner also relied on Article 326 of the Constitution. In addition, he claimed that authorities did not forward his nomination papers to the Returning Officer, which resulted in the rejection of his candidature.
The central issue before the Court was whether a person in prison custody can claim the right to vote. This question covered detenus, undertrials, and others in custody, especially in view of the statutory restriction.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan examined Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Bench noted that Section 62(5) expressly bars any person confined in prison or held in lawful police custody from voting in elections.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the statute creates only one exception. That exception applies to persons under preventive detention.
At one stage, the Bench considered whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of that exception.
However, the Court was informed that he was also involved in two other criminal cases. In those matters, the authorities had remanded him as well.
Because of that fact, the Bench held that the statutory bar applied squarely to him.
The Court therefore held that the petitioner could not claim the right to vote.
While dismissing the plea, the Madras High Court reiterated that convicts and undertrials in custody cannot vote because of the clear mandate of law.
The ruling reaffirms that voting rights remain subject to statutory limits.
It also makes clear that incarceration generally disqualifies a person from voting, except in the limited case of preventive detention alone.
