Pratidin
Polity and governance28 September 2026The Hindu, Text & ContextGS2

Should the right to vote become a fundamental right?

If voting is only a statutory right, how well is a voter protected when the rolls go wrong?

Published 28 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work

The Hindu's Text & Context page examined whether the right to vote should be raised to the status of a fundamental right. The question has returned because of the controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and an Indian Express report that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months to decisions taken under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Several objections concerned how names are added to and deleted from the rolls.

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at an Election Commission press conference, 27 October 2025.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at an Election Commission press conference, 27 October 2025. Election Commission of India, GODL-India, via Wikimedia Commons

The debate turns on the legal status of the vote. Article 326 provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage and Article 324 vests superintendence of elections in the Election Commission, but the details of who is enrolled are set by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), a Constitution Bench held that the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, although PUCL v. Union of India (2013) treated the act of casting a vote as a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a), and some benches have described voting as a constitutional right. On 26 September the ECI said a committee would review its ECINet software and that 81 of 97 possibly excluded voters in Goa had since filed Form 6.

Supporters of elevation argue that a fundamental right would give voters direct access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and would limit what the legislature or an administrative drive can take away. Critics point out that the Constitution already guarantees adult suffrage and that courts have protected the voter through other routes. LiveLaw has also questioned the ECI's claim that the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment approved its revised Form 6 declaration, since the Court examined only the June 2025 version.

Practise this in the app: flashcards, quiz and a timed answer
Prelims

Prelims facts

  • Article 326 provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; the 61st Amendment (1988) lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
  • Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections, including preparation of electoral rolls, in the Election Commission of India.
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs electoral rolls, while the Representation of the People Act, 1951 governs the conduct of elections, disqualifications and election disputes.

Quick recall

Which Article provides for adult suffrage?
Article 326.
Which Article gives the ECI control over rolls and elections?
Article 324.
Which law governs electoral rolls?
The Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Which case called the right to vote a statutory right?
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006).
Which amendment lowered the voting age to 18?
The 61st Amendment, 1988.
What is Form 6 used for?
Applying for inclusion of a new voter in the electoral roll.
Which Article allows direct petitions to the Supreme Court for fundamental rights?
Article 32.
What did the ECI announce on 26 September 2026?
A committee to review its ECINet software for compliance with law and rules.

Prelims practice question

Consider the following statements:
1. Article 326 of the Constitution provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage.
2. In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court held that the right to vote is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: (a) 1 only. Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: in Kuldip Nayar (2006) the Court described the right to vote as a statutory right.

Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions

Recurring theme: Electoral integrity and the role of the Election Commission

  1. 2022 · GS2 · 15 marksCovers one partUse it in the conclusion

    Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.

    How to use this

    Use it to conclude that the Commission's authority, whether over the Model Code or the rolls, depends on collective, recorded decision-making that is currently under question.

    • The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months to decisions taken under CEC Gyanesh Kumar, several on roll additions and deletions.
    • Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI; strengthening it as a multi-member body whose decisions are collective and recorded sustains its credibility.
  2. 2018 · GS2 · 10 marksCovers one partUse it in the body

    In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?

    How to use this

    Use it to add electoral roll integrity and internal dissent in the Commission to the trust challenges the ECI faces, beyond EVMs.

    • Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi reportedly recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months to decisions under CEC Gyanesh Kumar, several on how names are added to and deleted from rolls.
    • On 26 September the ECI said a committee would review its ECINet software, and that 81 of 97 possibly excluded Goa voters had since filed Form 6.
    • LiveLaw questioned the ECI's claim that the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment approved its revised Form 6 declaration, since the Court examined only the June 2025 version.
  3. 2017 · GS2 · 15 marksCovers one partUse it in the body

    To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

    How to use this

    Use it to add a newer strand of electoral reform: the legal status of the vote and procedural safeguards against wrongful deletion from rolls.

    • In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) a Constitution Bench called voting a statutory right; PUCL v. Union of India (2013) treated casting a vote as expression under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Supporters of making voting a fundamental right cite direct access to the Supreme Court under Article 32; critics say Article 326 already guarantees adult suffrage and the gap is implementation.
    • Procedural reform: write notice, hearing and reasons for deletions into the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and independently audit software such as ECINet.
Also asked on this theme
  1. 2019 · GS2 · 15 marks

    On what grounds a people's representative can be disqualified under the Representation of People Act, 1951? Also, mention the remedies available to such a person against his disqualification.

    Shows how the RPA framework defines electoral rights and remedies, which is central to the claim that voting is a statutory right.

Mains practice question

The right to vote in India is described by the Supreme Court as a statutory right even though adult suffrage is a constitutional guarantee. In the light of recent controversies over electoral roll revision, examine whether the right to vote should be made a fundamental right. (250 words)

Model answer

Adult suffrage under Article 326 is the foundation of Indian democracy, yet in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) the Supreme Court called the right to vote a statutory right, shaped by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Special Intensive Revision of rolls, and reported objections by two Election Commissioners to decisions on additions and deletions, have revived the demand to make it a fundamental right.

Case for elevation

  • Direct remedy: a fundamental right can be enforced straight under Article 32, useful when large numbers are excluded at once.
  • Limits on the State: ordinary law or an administrative drive could not dilute it beyond reasonable restrictions.
  • Burden of proof: exclusion would need strong justification, protecting the poor, migrants and first-time voters who struggle with documents.
  • Symbolic value: voting is the act through which citizens authorise all other institutions.

Case against or for caution

  • Article 326 already guarantees adult suffrage; the gap is in implementation, not text.
  • Courts already protect voters through Article 14 and natural justice, and in PUCL (2013) linked the act of voting to expression under Article 19(1)(a).
  • Eligibility rules (age, citizenship, residence) will still be needed, so disputes will continue.
  • Elevation may shift electoral management into litigation.

Way forward

  • Codify safeguards against deletion: notice, hearing and reasons, written into the Registration of Electors Rules.
  • Strengthen the multi-member Commission under Article 324 so that decisions are collective and recorded.
  • Audit software such as ECINet independently and publish deletion data by constituency.
  • Consider an amendment only alongside these procedural fixes.

A vote protected on paper but lost on the roll is no protection. Whatever its label, the right needs fair procedure to be real.

The basics

Why this matters

Every other right in a democracy depends on citizens being able to choose their government. When the rolls are revised on a large scale, as in the Special Intensive Revision, any error removes that choice silently. The question whether voting is a statutory or a fundamental right decides how quickly and how strongly a wrongly excluded voter can seek a remedy. It also tests how the Election Commission, a constitutional body under Article 324, takes and records its decisions.

14
objections recorded by two Election Commissioners
Reported by The Indian Express over about 10 months of decisions under the CEC

What the Constitution says

Article 326 promises elections on the basis of adult suffrage to every citizen who is at least 18 and not disqualified by law. Article 324 places the preparation of rolls and the conduct of elections under the Election Commission. But the Constitution leaves the machinery to Parliament: the Representation of the People Act, 1950 covers rolls, and the 1951 Act covers the conduct of elections. That delegation is why the Supreme Court in Kuldip Nayar (2006) called the right to vote statutory.

Who shapes the right to vote
  1. 1Article 326Guarantees adult suffrage at 18
  2. 2Article 324Gives the ECI control of rolls and elections
  3. 3RPA, 1950Rules on who is enrolled and where
  4. 4Registration of Electors Rules, 1960Forms and procedures such as Form 6

Statutory or fundamental: the difference

A statutory right exists because a law grants it, so the legislature can change its terms and a remedy normally runs through the High Court or the election machinery. A fundamental right can be enforced directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32, and any law that restricts it must pass the test of reasonableness. Supporters say this shift would force the State to justify every exclusion. Critics reply that adult suffrage is already in the Constitution, and that courts already scrutinise arbitrary action under Article 14.

Two ways to protect the vote
Statutory right (present)
  • Created and shaped by RPA and rules
  • Details can be changed by ordinary law, within Article 326
  • Remedy through election law and High Courts
vs
Fundamental right (proposed)
  • Enforceable directly under Article 32
  • Restrictions must be reasonable
  • Would require a constitutional amendment

What the current controversy shows

The reported objections by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Vivek Joshi dealt with changes to the Form 6 declaration, deletions and restorations, and the gradual centralisation of the roll database. The ECI has replied that its orders were unanimous, that a committee will review ECINet, and that most of 97 affected voters in Goa have now applied again. LiveLaw has noted that the Supreme Court's May 2026 ruling examined only the original declaration, not the revised one.

How the roll dispute unfolded
  1. 24 Jun 2025ECI orders SIR, starting with Bihar
  2. 27 May 2026Supreme Court rules on the Bihar SIR declaration
  3. Jul 2026Revised Form 6 declaration introduced
  4. 23 Sep 2026Report of 14 objections by two ECs
  5. 26 Sep 2026ECI announces ECINet review

A balanced view

Changing the label of a right will not by itself fix a flawed process. The practical protections are notice before deletion, a real hearing, written reasons and quick appeals, all of which can be written into the rules today. A multi-member Commission that records dissent and decides collectively adds a further check. If Parliament also wants the symbolic and legal weight of a fundamental right, it can amend the Constitution, but procedure is what keeps names on the roll.

A voter's name on the electoral roll
is like
a ticket to a match
however grand the stadium's promise of entry, you are turned away at the gate if your ticket has been cancelled without notice

You now know

  • Article 326 guarantees adult suffrage; the voting age is 18 since the 61st Amendment (1988).
  • Kuldip Nayar (2006) held that the right to vote is a statutory right.
  • Two Election Commissioners reportedly recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months to decisions under the CEC.
  • The ECI has set up a committee to review its ECINet software.

Go deeper

In one line: The fight over electoral rolls has revived an old question: should voting be a fundamental right rather than a right granted by ordinary law?

Why it matters for UPSC

Questions on the Election Commission, the RPA and electoral reform appear often in GS2. This story links all three to a live controversy and lets you discuss rights, remedies and institutional design together.

The core idea

Universal Adult Franchise is promised by Article 326. But the rules on who gets onto the roll come from the Representation of the People Acts, and the Election Commission of India applies them. Because Parliament frames those rules, the Supreme Court in Kuldip Nayar (2006) called the vote a statutory right, though later rulings linked the act of voting to free expression under Article 19(1)(a). The debate on Statutory vs Fundamental Rights is about whether that is enough protection when revisions exclude voters in large numbers. Supporters want direct access to the Supreme Court; critics say better procedure matters more than a new label.

Numbers and dates to remember

  • Voting age: 18, since the 61st Amendment, 1988.
  • Kuldip Nayar judgment: 2006.
  • SIR ordered: 24 June 2025.
  • Objections by two ECs: at least 14 in about 10 months.
  • Goa: 81 of 97 possibly excluded voters have filed Form 6.

Where to go next

Go deeper: rights, remedies and roll revision

The strongest argument against making voting a fundamental right is that the Constitution already protects it. Universal Adult Franchise under Article 326 cannot be withdrawn by ordinary law, and any exclusion must follow the procedure in the Representation of the People Acts. On this view the recent trouble is administrative, not constitutional.

The argument for change rests on remedies. Under the Statutory vs Fundamental Rights distinction, a fundamental right carries the direct route of Article 32 and requires any restriction to be reasonable and proportionate. Courts have moved in this direction already: PUCL (2013) linked the act of voting to expression under Article 19(1)(a) when it ordered the NOTA option.

The institutional angle matters as much. The Election Commission of India became a three-member body in 1993, and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 now governs appointments. Reports of recorded objections by two Commissioners raise the question of how collective decisions are to be taken and recorded.

For answers, combine three points: legal status, procedural safeguards (notice, hearing, reasons, appeal), and institutional checks within the Commission.

Where to go next

Universal Adult Franchise

Why India gave every adult the vote from day one

In one line: Every adult citizen gets one vote, whatever their wealth, education, caste or gender.

What it means

Universal adult franchise means that all citizens above a set age can vote. In India the age is 18. Nobody needs to own land, pay tax or pass a test.

Why India chose it

When the Constitution came into force in 1950, many older democracies had taken decades to give votes to all. India gave it at once, trusting ordinary people to choose their rulers. Article 326 writes this promise into the Constitution.

Why it is in the news

If a person's name is wrongly left off the electoral roll, the promise of Article 326 cannot be used. That is why errors in roll revision cause so much concern.

Where to go next

Election Commission of India

The constitutional referee of elections

In one line: The Election Commission is the independent body that runs elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President.

Where it comes from

Article 324 of the Constitution creates the Commission and gives it control over electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

How it is made up

It has a Chief Election Commissioner and, since 1993, two other Election Commissioners. A 2023 law sets out how they are appointed.

Why it is in the news

Two Commissioners reportedly objected many times to decisions taken under the Chief Election Commissioner, including on how names are added and deleted during the revision of rolls. The Commission says its key orders were unanimous.

Where to go next

Representation of the People Acts

The two laws that run elections

In one line: Two laws passed by Parliament fill in the details of how elections work.

The 1950 Act

This law deals with the allocation of seats and the preparation of electoral rolls: who can be enrolled, where, and how names are added or removed.

The 1951 Act

This law deals with the actual conduct of elections, the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, corrupt practices and election disputes.

Why they matter now

Because the details of voting come from these Acts and the rules made under them, the Supreme Court has called the right to vote a statutory right. Changing these rules changes how easily people can vote.

Where to go next

Statutory vs Fundamental Rights

Why the label on a right changes the remedy

In one line: A statutory right comes from an ordinary law, while a fundamental right comes from Part III of the Constitution and is harder to take away.

Statutory rights

Parliament or a State legislature creates them and can change them by passing another law. Remedies usually lie with ordinary courts or special bodies.

Fundamental rights

These are guaranteed by the Constitution. A person can go straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32 if they are violated, and any restriction must be reasonable.

The voting debate

The Supreme Court in Kuldip Nayar (2006) called the right to vote statutory, but other judgments have called it a constitutional right and linked the act of voting to free expression. Some people want it moved into the fundamental rights category so that voters have stronger protection against wrongful exclusion.

Where to go next

Take the 28 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers

Syllabus

Related stories

Sources used for this summary