- #ElectionsWithNewsGram
- HOME
- OPINION
- ON GROUND
- INTERVIEW
- IPL 2026
- INDIA
- NewsGram USA
- WORLD
- न्यूजग्राम
- POLITICS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- CULTURE
- LIFESTYLE
- ECONOMY
- SPORTS
- Jobs / Internships
- Misc.
- NewsGram Exclusive
The Supreme Court of India declined a plea seeking mandatory voting, saying such decisions fall under the policy domain, not judicial intervention.
The bench led by Surya Kant said citizens cannot be punished or forced to vote, emphasising that participation must be voluntary.
The court highlighted real-world challenges like work obligations and economic hardship, questioning the feasibility of penalising non-voters.
On Thursday, April 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, while hearing a plea on voter participation and making voting mandatory, said the issue falls outside the court’s jurisdiction. The case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which the judiciary refused to entertain, observing that such decisions lie in the policy domain.
The bench said it cannot “arrest” people who choose not to vote. It comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, who heard the plea. The judges stated that whether a person votes or not depends on personal choice and cannot be mandated.
Ajay Goel, who filed the petition, sought directions from the court to make voting compulsory and to impose penalties on those who abstain. These included restricting access to certain government benefits for non-voters. However, the bench said such measures were not feasible and declined to intervene, asking the petitioner to approach the appropriate stakeholders instead.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised that India’s democracy thrives on voluntary participation, not coercion. Quoting the court, PTI reported: “In a country which is governed by the rule of law and believes in democracy… everyone is expected to go (and vote). If they don’t go, they don’t go. What is needed is awareness, but we cannot compel,” he said.
The bench also questioned the logic of penalising citizens for not voting, asking what action could realistically be taken—“Should we direct their arrest?” The court reiterated that it is ultimately up to individuals whether they choose to vote.
It further pointed out practical challenges that may prevent people from voting, including professional and personal obligations. The Chief Justice cited the example of Justice Bagchi, noting that if mandatory voting were enforced, he would have to travel to West Bengal to vote even on a working day. Justice Bagchi added that “judicial work is also important.”
The bench also raised concerns about economically weaker sections who cannot afford to lose a day’s wages. “If a person who is poor says, ‘I need to earn my wages, how do I vote?’ what should we say to them?” the court asked, highlighting the ground realities that influence voter turnout.
Reiterating its stance, the court said such decisions require policy formulation and are not within the judiciary’s purview. It maintained that making voting mandatory and penalising non-voters is not something the court can enforce.
[VP]
