How India and the US frame the right to vote

India and the US, often referred to as the world’s largest and oldest democracies, are engaged in debates about voting rights. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is undertaking Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to verify and revise electoral rolls. In the US, the “Save America Act”, a legislation that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and identification to cast ballots, is being debated. 

The debates on the right to vote on either side of the Atlantic draw attention to how the Constitutions of the two nations define and defend it. Let’s explore. 

Constitution and voting rights in India 

The Constitution of India guarantees elections based on universal adult suffrage through Article 326. This was a notable commitment for a newly independent country, especially at a time when some established democracies still imposed restrictions on voting rights, including on the basis of gender. 

But Article 326 is not part of Part III of the Constitution, which lists the Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court has historically interpreted the right to vote as a statutory right, calling it a ‘creature of statute’ or special law governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, rather than an absolute fundamental guarantee. 

However, later judgement recognised the right to vote as a constitutional right under Article 326. For instance, in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties case (2003), Justice P V Reddy observed that the right to vote, if not a fundamental right, is certainly a ‘constitutional right’.

The right to vote in India is thus enforceable through ordinary legal processes. In relation to disputes relating to voting rights, voters generally seek relief before high courts, election tribunals, or through procedures prescribed in the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Constitution and voting rights in the US  

The Constitution of the United States contains no explicit provision granting citizens the right to vote. The original American Constitution, owing to its federal structure, left voter qualifications to individual states, although universal adult franchise was reached step by step through constitutional amendments, including:  

* The 15th Amendment prohibited denial of the vote on grounds of race in 1870.  

* The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, prohibited denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex.

* The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes, which were essentially a fee citizens had to pay in order to vote.

* The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.

Notably, these amendments were framed in a negative form, meaning they tell governments the reasons or grounds on which they couldn’t deny voting rights, rather than declaring that every citizen has the right to vote. Therefore, the universal adult franchise existing in the US today is a cumulative effect of these prohibitions, rather than an explicit, enforceable right to vote. 

Justiciability and legislative protection

The constitutional status of voting rights in each nation directly determines their enforceability and judicial protection. 

The case of India 

In the case of India, concerns regarding the status of voting rights are not new. Dr B R Ambedkar and Jagjivan Ram had expressed concerns in the Constituent Assembly debates over ensuring the voting rights for every eligible voter. But the final choice to not place it in Part III of the Constitution was made based on the realisation that it would place an immense administrative burden on a newly independent, economically strained nation. 

Over time, the Supreme Court strengthened democratic participation through expansive interpretation. In the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs Union of India case of 2002, the apex court recognised voters’ right to know the background of candidates. 

In the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013), it directed the introduction of the NOTA (“None of the Above”) option to protect voter choice and secrecy. Yet these judicial interventions, while significant, cannot be a substitute for a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote.

The case of the US

On the other hand, the US shows the limitations of voting rights that primarily rely on legislation rather than constitutional guarantees. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), enacted in response to the American civil rights movement, was considered the most powerful federal tool for protecting the right to vote. 

This law mandated that states and counties with a history of voter discrimination must obtain federal approval (preclearance) before changing any voting law, and served as an effective check on discriminatory practices that denied voting rights for decades. 

However, Supreme Court rulings in 2013 and 2021 struck down key provisions of the VRA, significantly weakening its protective reach. This shows that voting protections grounded in legislation rather than the Constitution remain vulnerable to the choices of courts and legislatures.

Election administration

In terms of electoral administration, India and the US have contrasting systems due to their distinct federal structures. The Election Commission of India (ECI), an autonomous constitutional authority under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, is empowered to supervise, oversee, and manage elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice President of India.

While the ECI relies on state machinery and local Booth Level Officers (BLOs) for field operations like SIR and voter registration drives, the overall command structure remains uniform and insulated from local legislative interference. This ensures that a citizen’s right and ability to vote does not depend on where they live in the country.

In contrast, the US runs its national elections through a decentralised system. The US Constitution leaves the ‘times, places and manner’ of holding elections to individual state legislatures, resulting in over 50 different state-level frameworks and more than 3,000 county-level bodies, each with its own rules and standards. 

While the Federal Election Commission oversees campaign finance exclusively, and the Election Assistance Commission offers non-binding guidance with no administrative authority, there is no American counterpart to the ECI. Voter identification requirements, early voting rules, absentee ballot policies, and polling locations vary from state to state, and are managed by state level officials. 

Responsibility for electoral participation

Another key difference between the two democracies lies in where responsibility for electoral participation is placed. India has adopted a state-driven model. The ECI bears primary responsibility for preparing and maintaining electoral rolls, deploying BLOs, and conducting the entire election process. 

The Representation of the People Act, 1950 clearly places the duty of ensuring voter participation on the state. Thus, the state, through the ECI, takes the responsibility of ensuring maximum possible electoral participation by conducting house-to-house enumerations, updating rolls, and ensuring that a polling booth is accessible within two kilometres of every voter’s residence.

The US, by contrast, places the burden of participation on individual citizens. An American citizen has to actively opt into the electoral process and meet the requirements set out by the local bureaucracy and government to exercise their franchise. 

As a result, more than a quarter (26 per cent) of eligible American voters remain unregistered and out of the electoral process. This is in contrast with nations where the government is in charge of voter registration, such as India, Germany, Australia, and Canada, where more than 95 per cent of the eligible population registered to vote. 

To sum up, what we can understand from the comparison between these two nations’ positions on voting rights is that India’s uniform state-driven system that takes participation as a public responsibility rather than a private burden is advantageous in ensuring universal adult franchise. And the debates in both nations show that the strength of a democracy lies not just in the right to vote, but also in its ability to ensure and protect it.

Post read questions

Compare the constitutional foundations of voting rights in India and the United States. How do these differences shape electoral governance in the two democracies?

Discuss the distinction between a constitutional right, a statutory right, and a fundamental right in the context of the right to vote in India.

Critically examine the role of the Supreme Court of India in expanding democratic participation despite the right to vote not being a Fundamental Right.

Discuss the role of constitutional design in protecting voting rights. What lessons can India and the United States draw from each other?

Examine the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring universal adult franchise and electoral inclusion.

(Kannan K is a Doctoral candidate at the Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.)  

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Gear up for UPSC Prelims 2026—Practice smarter, revise faster, and succeed with our Special Quiz Magazine. (Click Here)

Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for May 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.