In 1931, Mahatma Gandhi made a powerful case for universal voting rights in British India, a stance that continues to frame contemporary discussions about suffrage in the nation. Writing in his weekly newspaper, Young India, on October 8, 1931, Gandhi vehemently opposed the idea that wealth or literacy should be prerequisites for the right to vote. He argued that a person of strong character, even without financial means or formal education, deserved the vote more than a wealthy individual lacking character.
Gandhi's conviction was clear: "A man who works honestly by the sweat of his brow day in and day out should not have the vote for the crime of being a poor man, it is an unbearable thing." He even declared he would "far rather forego the right of voting myself than that this untouchable brother should not have the vote." While acknowledging the massive logistical challenge of enlisting India's vast population, he proposed a pragmatic solution: "We can have this alternative, that he who wants to vote can have the vote... I think a scheme of that character would keep the voters' list in a manageable compass."
Historical Context: Constituent Assembly Debates
Decades later, during the framing of India's Constitution, the issue of voting rights remained central. Visionaries like B.R. Ambedkar advocated for making voting a fundamental right. However, an advisory committee chaired by Sardar Patel rejected this proposal in April 1947. Instead, they opted for universal adult suffrage, ensuring every eligible adult the right to vote without discrimination based on race, gender, religion, wealth, or social status, but classified it as a statutory right rather than a fundamental one.
KF Wilfred, former senior principal secretary at the Election Commission of India (ECI), explained that the sheer size of India's electorate was a primary reason for not elevating voting to a fundamental right during the Constituent Assembly deliberations. Logistical concerns, including potential issues with voter impersonation or non-participation, influenced this decision.
The Modern Debate: SIR and Fundamental Rights
Today, Gandhi's principles are back in focus amidst the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Review (SIR) of voter lists. This exercise has led to the removal of lakhs of names and raised concerns about potential disenfranchisement. Experts and political leaders are once again advocating for voting to be recognized as a fundamental right, or at least for robust safeguards to protect the voting entitlement of genuine citizens.
The courts have repeatedly observed that while voting may not be a fundamental right, it is "fundamental to India's democracy" and treated as a statutory right. PDT Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, emphasizes that under Article 326 of the Constitution, every citizen is entitled to be registered unless legally disqualified, questioning the ECI's methodology in the SIR process, which he notes lacks specific legal backing for its current form.
Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh highlighted the anomaly: "The Supreme Court has itself recognised that voters have a Constitutional and fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates... It is, therefore, all the more anomalous that the right to vote remains only a statutory right."
Ramesh argues that elevating voting to a fundamental right would provide the highest level of judicial review and protection against voter suppression or arbitrary disqualifications, strengthening the Election Commission's accountability and safeguarding democratic principles.