SC bats for compulsory voting. But the Constitution calls voting an entitlement. That can’t be compulsory  

Two years ago, about 65cr Indians voted in LS polls. That turnout was more than the populations of US and Indonesia – 3rd and 4th most populous countries – combined. But it was only 66% of India’s 98cr-strong electorate at the time. That means one of every three registered voters stayed away. Nobody disputes that bigger turnouts – approaching 100% – would make our democracy more representative, but is compulsory voting the way to reach that goal? This idea has been discussed and rejected in Parliament several times over the past 75 years. So, it’s noteworthy that CJI said yesterday there’s a “need to issue some kind of compulsory but not harsh mechanism to ensure that people go and vote.” We, respectfully, disagree. 

Voting in India has always been a right, never a duty or obligation of the citizen. You can vote, you should vote, but you don’t have to vote. The Constitution calls it an “entitlement”: “Every person who is a citizen of India…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.” Compulsory voting doesn’t jell with that promise. Look at it another way. If voting is expression of a citizen’s will, it must be protected by the freedom of expression, which includes the choice to remain silent. That is, not vote. 

Countries like Australia have made voting compulsory. Not voting there draws a mild penalty of AU $20. But India is different. Our main problem isn’t that people don’t want to vote – the exception being many urban well-off voters – but that they often can’t vote. A 2019 TOI campaign called ‘Lost Votes’ highlighted how 28cr migrants had been unable to cast votes in 2014 because they were working far from their home states. Instead of making voting compulsory, India needs to remove these hurdles to voting. The turnout will jump.

END OF ARTICLE