LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 29 March 2023

Does the open ballot in Council of States elections take away an elector’s right to vote?

Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors.
2023 INSC 302 · Writ Petition (Civil) No 1141 of 2020
Coram: Saroj Kumari Gaur
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow r.39-AA Conduct of Election Rule…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. By the amendment the right to vote is not taken away — each elected Member of the Legislative Assembly is fully entitled to vote in the election to the Council of States, and the only change is that he has to disclose the way he has cast the vote to the representative of his Party. It is only a voter who refuses to show the ballot to the authorised agent of his political party who forfeits the right to vote.

Headnote

Conduct of Election Rules 1961 — r.39-AA — Representation of the People Act 1951 — s.33 — Constitution of India — Art.80(4) — Open ballot — Council of States — Cross-voting — Conduct of Election Rules 1961 — r.39-AA — Open ballot regulates, does not remove, the vote — Held: The open ballot in elections to the Council of States does not take away the right to vote but regulates it to eliminate cross-voting; only an elector who refuses to show the marked ballot to his party’s authorised agent forfeits the vote. (¶11, 13) Constitutional challenge — Availability of a less restrictive alternative — Held further: That an alternate means could subserve the same end does not make a Rule unconstitutional. The Rule does not foreclose the exercise of the right to vote; cancellation follows only the elector’s own refusal to disclose. (¶16) Representation of the People Act 1951 — s.33 proviso — Ten proposers for a non-party candidate — Held further: The requirement that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party be proposed by ten electors lies purely in the realm of legislative policy and is not per se discriminatory. Petition dismissed. (¶19, 20)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11The rationale for the introduction of the provision for voting by open ballot in elections to the Council of States has been examined in a decision of the Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v Union of India[^4]. The Constitution Bench held that after the amendment, voting to the Council of States has undergone a material change and that the norm of voting by a secret ballot has been replaced by open ballot. The Constitution Bench held that it is only a voter at such an election who refuses to show the ballot to the authorised agent of his political party, who forfeits the right to vote. The Court observed:
Paragraph 13The Constitution Bench held that in a general election, secrecy of voting is required to maintain the purity of the electoral system. A voter is entitled to exercise the right to vote in a free and fair manner without disclosing how he has voted. However, the concept of “constituency-based representation” in a general election is distinct from “proportional representation”. In a case of “proportional representation”, voters are subject to party discipline, The Constitution Bench held that it is legitimately open to prescribe the methodology of an open ballot for conducting elections to the Council of States. The Court has held that the amendment does not take away the right to vote, but only regulates the right so as to eliminate the evil of cross-voting by an elector who has been elected to the Assembly of a particular State on the basis of a party nomination. The Court held:
Acts & Sections
r.39-AA Conduct of Election Rules 1961r.39A Conduct of Election Rules 1961s.33 Representation of the People Act 1951s.59 Representation of the People Act 1951Art.80(4) Constitution of IndiaArt.32 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does the existence of a less restrictive alternative make a Rule unconstitutional?Is requiring ten proposers for a non-party candidate under Section 33, RP Act discriminatory?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections