Right to vote is a legal right not a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian

Constitution.

The possible reasons why it has not been classified as a fundamental right could be:

1. The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into effect on 26
January 1950. While the first elections were held in 1952 after the passage of Representation
of People Act 1950 and 1951. Clearly the mechanisms and other provisions regarding the
conduct of elections, criteria of voters and candidates etc was not worked out. Thats why it
did not find a place in the Constitution.

2. A fundamental right if it has to be changed, needs constitutional amendment which is a

tedious process. Had right to vote been a fundamental right, 1986 when the voting age was
reduced to 18 years from earlier 21 years would have been much more difficult.

3. If we see the tenor of all the fundamental rights, they emphasise upon equality, freedom
etc which are the basic tenets of universal rights. Right to vote is a political right which
might not fit in properly.

4. The fundamental right like Article 14 ie right to equality amply covers the right to vote if
denied on the basis of caste ,race, gender etc. Thus no need to explicitly include it in Part III
as a fundamental right.

5. India is a large country with a huge population. Many a times, voters are unable to vote
due to numerous reasons like:
When in police custody
When on national duty like armed forces
When working away from home town

Now if right to vote had been a ffundamental right, a person who is employed with a private
firm could have gone to the Supreme Court seeking remedy when his employer might have
denied him leave to go to his home state to vote. Many such cases could have come up.
Based on practicalities this is a wise categorisation as a legal right.

Legal rights can have remedies from courts. So right to vote is clearly well protected as well.
3.8k Views View Upvotes
Right to vote

Constitutional right is "granted" by Constitution. They are not prexisting. Example: Right
to Vote. You cannot approach courts for their violation under Article 32 or 226 (These
empower the supreme court and high court respectively to issue writs against any authority
of the State inorder to enforce the Fundamental rights)

Fundamental Rights are not "granted" by any Constitution or government document. They
are prexisting. Without Fundamental Rights, the life of people becomes miserable. Because
Fundamental Rights are so fundamental for peace, happiness and security of people, these
are the rights that are most likely to violated by State to cause hardships to citizens. Hence
these rights are merely "guaranteed" by Constitution from being violated by State.

Right to vote

My interpretation of the thought process behind not making voting a fundamental right. I
will steer clear of the legalese as many other folks have already shed light on it.

1. The founding fathers thought that the right to equality is a fundamental right that
can protect the citizens from being disenfranchised by the government on the basis
of religion, sex, caste creed etc. Any law created in India has to satisfy the
requirements of the right to equality. Voting included.
2. The founding fathers also thought that peoples representatives should be afforded
the flexibility to disenfranchise sections of the society that they deemed fit as long
as it did not violate a fundamental right. Without this flexibility convicted
prisoners would be allowed to vote today. If voting was a fundamental right, it
would have meant that you could not be stripped of your voting right under any
circumstances. The Courts deemed that if you cannot vote, then you cannot
represent hence barring folks such as Lalu and Amit Shah from elections. If voting
was a fundamental right, you could not bar the convicted criminals. It was an
extraordinary circumstance where criminals were starting to penetrate the polity.
This is a also double edged sword and if and only if a government that believes in
democratic principles is at the seat of power can citizens expect their voting right to be
protected. Adventurism with voting rights can strike at the very root of our democracy.

PUCL Vs Union of India 2013

Right to vote

Because even without voting one can lead a good, peaceful & happy life. Fundamental right
is something which ensure good, peaceful & happy life. Although the my wordings may not
be absolutely correct, its quite to the point.

A fundamental right is a right of every Indian citizen. But the voting act is a privilege of
being an Indian adult citizen. The basic difference lies in the definition of who can vote.
Voters HAVE to be over 18.
Citizens born into India are citizens since the day they are born till they rescind their
citizenship (if they do).

Right to vote

History of voting who can vote who governs the voting, right to vote as fundamental right n other
countries, right to vote is nota fundamental right justified.

68[171E. Punishment for bribery.Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating
shall be punished with fine only. Explanation.Treating means that form of
bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provi-
sion.]

69[171F. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.Whoever

commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year or with fine, or with both.]