Madras High Court denies prisoner’s plea to vote in Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026

The April 22 order dismissed the prisoner’s plea and held that “…the right to vote is a statutory right…the RP Act temporarily takes away the power of such persons to vote, even if his name is on the electoral rolls…is not struck off, but the qualification to be an elector and the privilege to vote when in the lawful custody of the police is taken away.”

The petitioner failed to state anything related to the other cases pending against him.

Voting right is statutory, not absolute: Court

The court noted that it was undisputed under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act that persons under preventive detention were entitled to vote. However, the petitioner had only referred to his detention and failed to disclose the other pending criminal cases against him.

Underscoring that three more criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, which were under investigation, the Madras High Court opined that the petitioner was not eligible to vote in the ensuing Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election, 2026.

Declaring the relief sought by the petitioner as non-maintainable, the court held that the right to vote was a statutory right and not an absolute one. Persons convicted of offences are excluded from participating in elections, even if their names remain on the electoral roll, while the Representation of the People Act temporarily suspends their right to vote while they are in lawful custody.

The Madras High Court referred to Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, where the constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right, but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. 

Section 62(5) of the RP Act, 1951

The section states that 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. 
• Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector

Various offences in various courts 

Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak, representing the respondents, submitted that based on the prison instructions, the petitioner was in judicial custody as a remand prisoner under various BNS sections.

He argued that the petitioner was also detained under the Goondas Act since January 22, 2026, on the orders of the commissioner of police, Greater Chennai. Additionally, there were other pending cases against him.

Thilak submitted that the petitioner’s nomination as an independent candidate from Alungulam was rejected because the filing procedure was not duly followed. 

The counsel argued that his representation, seeking permission to cast a vote in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election, 2026, was forwarded to the concerned returning officer, but, due to three pending cases against him in various courts and his being in custody, he was not eligible to vote.

‘Politically motivated’ detention

The petitioner claimed that a false, politically motivated case led to his detention under the Goondas Act, and he had already challenged the detention through a petition that was pending in the court.

He had contested the 2026 assembly elections as an independent candidate from Alangulam, but allegedly his nomination was not forwarded to the returning officer of the constituency and ultimately was rejected. 

On March 30, 2026, the petitioner had sought permission from the police to cast his vote and make arrangements for polling booths in jail. However, authorities on April 15, 2026, informed him that he was not allowed to vote in elections.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed the petition alleging that the deputy inspector of police had infringed his voting rights.