Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

BJP MPs raise issues of voting rights for undertrials, water crisis, healthcare in Rajya Sabha

February 13, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS2 (Constitutional Provisions Electoral Reforms Fundamental Rights)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Members of Parliament raised multiple issues in the Rajya Sabha including voting rights for undertrials, inter-basin water transfer projects, high-speed rail in the North East, and healthcare gaps.
  • A Karnataka MP called for amending Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to grant voting rights to undertrials and those sentenced to less than seven years in prison.
  • The demand highlighted that India's prisons hold approximately 4.34 lakh undertrials (76% of the total prison population), all of whom are currently denied the right to vote despite not being convicted.
  • Other members raised concerns about inter-basin water transfer projects to address regional water crises, and the need for improved healthcare infrastructure in underserved areas.
  • The debate brought attention to the tension between security concerns in custodial settings and the fundamental principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Static Topic Bridges

Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

  • Section 62(5) states: "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."
  • The provision makes no distinction between convicted prisoners and undertrials who are merely accused and awaiting trial.
  • An undertrial who is released on bail can exercise voting rights, but those unable to secure bail remain disenfranchised regardless of the outcome of their trial.
  • India's position contrasts with several democracies: the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v. UK (2005) held that blanket prisoner disenfranchisement violates Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada in Sauve v. Canada (2002) struck down prisoner disenfranchisement laws, holding that the right to vote is essential to democratic legitimacy.
  • The Law Commission of India (254th Report, 2015) recommended electoral reforms but did not specifically address undertrial voting rights.

Connection to this news: The MP's demand to amend Section 62(5) directly targets the anomaly that undertrials -- legally presumed innocent -- are treated identically to convicted persons for electoral purposes. With 76% of India's prison population being undertrials, this amounts to disenfranchisement of over 4.34 lakh citizens who have not been found guilty of any crime.

  • Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination, which implicitly supports the presumption of innocence.
  • Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a fair trial, which encompasses the presumption of innocence.
  • Article 14 (Right to Equality) requires that classifications in law must be reasonable -- treating undertrials the same as convicts for voting purposes may fail this test.
  • In Narasu Appa Mali v. State of Bombay (1952), the Bombay High Court laid early groundwork for rational classification under Article 14.
  • The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) reiterated that "the presumption of innocence is a human right" and "bail is the rule, jail is the exception."
  • The Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) petition challenged the blanket disenfranchisement of undertrials under Section 62(5), but the matter remained pending.
  • NCRB data (2022): 4,34,302 undertrials in Indian prisons, comprising 76% of the total prison population of 5,73,220.

Connection to this news: The parliamentary demand for amending Section 62(5) directly engages the presumption of innocence. If an undertrial is presumed innocent, denying them the vote is treating them as if convicted. The high proportion of undertrials (76%) in Indian prisons -- many of whom are from marginalized communities and unable to afford bail -- makes this a significant access-to-justice issue with implications for electoral representation.

Prison Reforms and Undertrial Prisoners

  • National average prison occupancy rate: approximately 130% (NCRB Prison Statistics, 2022), with some state prisons at 200% or more.
  • The Justice Mulla Committee (1983) recommended reforms for undertrials, including speedier trials and expanded legal aid.
  • The Justice Amitava Roy Committee (2018), appointed by the Supreme Court, recommended that undertrials who have served half of their maximum sentence should be released on their own recognizance.
  • Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 479 of BNSS, 2023) mandates release of undertrials who have served half the maximum sentence for their alleged offence -- but compliance has been inconsistent.
  • The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) provides free legal aid to undertrials under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
  • Model Prison Manual, 2016 recommends prison conditions aligned with human rights standards, but implementation varies widely.
  • Socioeconomic profile of undertrials: Disproportionately from SC/ST communities, religious minorities, and economically weaker sections.

Connection to this news: Granting voting rights to undertrials intersects with broader prison reform. The logistical challenge of conducting elections in prisons is real but not insurmountable -- postal ballot mechanisms (already available for service voters, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens above 85) could potentially be extended to undertrials. Several democracies have implemented in-prison voting successfully.

Key Facts & Data

  • Section 62(5) of RPA, 1951: Blanket bar on voting for all persons confined in prison, including undertrials
  • Undertrial population: 4,34,302 (76% of total 5,73,220 prison inmates) as per NCRB 2022
  • National prison occupancy: ~130% average, some states exceed 200%
  • Section 479 BNSS (formerly Section 436A CrPC): Mandates release of undertrials who have served half maximum sentence
  • Hirst v. UK (ECHR, 2005): Blanket prisoner disenfranchisement violates European Convention
  • Sauve v. Canada (2002): Canadian Supreme Court struck down prisoner voting bans
  • Postal ballot: Already available for service voters, PwDs, and senior citizens above 85 in India
  • Swaran Singh Committee (1976): Recommended including duty to vote as a Fundamental Duty