NEW DELHI,16 April 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) plea seeking penalties against citizens who do not vote in elections.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi disposed of the petition filed by Ajay Goel, who had sought consequences for non-voters, including denial of government benefits.
During the hearing, the Court expressed strong reservations about the feasibility and constitutionality of enforcing compulsory voting. It underscored the practical difficulties in mandating electoral participation, stating that such a direction would be unrealistic in a country with diverse socio-economic conditions.
Illustrating the point, he noted that even members of the judiciary could face logistical constraints.
“If we accept this, then my brother Justice Bagchi has to go to West Bengal and vote though it’s a working day,” said CJI Kant.
The Bench further questioned the implications of imposing penalties on those who choose not to vote.
“So should we direct their arrest etc? In a country which is governed by rule of law and believes in democracy and we have shown for 75 years how we trust and believe it, so all are expected to go. If they don’t go, they don’t go. So all is needed is awareness. But we cannot compel,” noted CJI Kant.
The Court also highlighted the economic constraints faced by many citizens. It emphasised that non-participation may stem from compulsion rather than apathy. It said,
“If a person who is poor says I will earn my wages how do I vote. What should we say?”
In response, the counsel argued that some restrictions were necessary to incentivise voting. He suggested that those who do not vote could be barred from availing certain government benefits.
The Court remained unconvinced.
“App yeh kaam hamare taraf se kar lijiye (you do this for us),” CJI Kant replied.
The Court reiterated that any coercive measures would be inconsistent with democratic principles.
The Court observed that the issue of introducing penal consequences or disincentives for non-voting lies squarely within the policy domain of the legislature and the executive.
Hemce, it disposed of the plea with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities or stakeholders for consideration of such measures.
Picture credit social media
