Verma, C. J. I - (1.) -By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge is made to the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (5) of S. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 62 relates to right to vote and is as under:"62. Right to vote.- (1) No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency. (2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in S. 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). (3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more than one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be void. (4) No person shall at any election vote in the same constituency more than once, notwithstanding that his name may have been registered in the electoral roll for that constituency more than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that constituency shall be void. (5) No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force."
(2.) Section 62 contains five sub-sections. Sub-section (1) says that every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency. Sub-sec. (2) debars a person from voting at the election if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in S. 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which deals with disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. Sub-sec. (3) forbids every person from voting in more than one constituency of the same class. Sub-sec. (4) forbids every person from voting in the same constituency more than once. Sub-sec. (5) debars a person to vote in an election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. The proviso to sub-sec. (5) carves out an exception for a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force. Thus, a person confined in a prison under a sentence of imprisonment or otherwise or in the lawful custody of the police is debarred from voting at any election during the period of his confinement in the prison, but this bar does not apply to a person under preventive detention. We are concerned with the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (5).
(3.) The argument of Shri Rajinder Sachar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that sub-sec. (5) of S. 62 of the Act violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission is that the expression "or otherwise" in sub-sec. (5) of S. 62 has a very wide connotation and denies voting right even to undertrials and other persons detained in a prison for any reason, including the reason of inability to furnish bail. He submitted that the restriction applies to a person in lawful custody of the police which would include a person detained during investigation before a charge-sheet has been filed against him. On the other hand, a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment but released on bail is permitted to vote. The learned counsel contended that this is discrimination and violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was further contended by the learned counsel that there is violation also of Art. 21 inasmuch as the restriction placed on the prisoners right to vote by sub-sec. (5) of S. 62 of the Act denies dignity of life. In substance, the challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (5) of S. 62 is based primarily on Art. 14 of the Constitution.;