Right To Vote May Only Be A Statutory Right, But Right To Seek Vote Is A Fundamental Right: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently ruled though the right to vote may only be a statutory right, the right to seek vote is a fundamental right and that the right to campaign is derivable from the right to freedom of speech & expression, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to freely move throughout the territory of India.

The High Court held so while considering a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents (Collector & Police Officers) to pay compensation of Rs.15 lacs for the damages caused to the petitioner's properties due to violence, allegedly after the respondent, a BJP candidate who in the 2014 assembly election was stopped from campaigning in the petitioner's area by a group of 50 Muslims.

Remarking on the incident as anti-democratic and stating that the defacto complainant ought not to have even attempted to prevent the eighth respondent (BJP candidate) and others from conducting their election campaign, the High Court observed that the State can be directed to pay compensation under certain circumstances, however, the same would require undertaking scrutiny of factual aspects.

Emphasizing that the right to campaign is traceable directly to Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan observed that “The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that this right is upheld at all costs and under any circumstance. The persons who attempt to restrain candidates and party cadre from exercising this right shall be dealt with an iron hand”.

Advocate C.M. Arumugam appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Addl Government Pleader S.RA. Ramachandran appeared for the official Respondents and Advocate A.Anandha Prakash appeared for the private Respondents.

The Court began the order by comparing the situation at hand with the plot in a Tamil Movie where Vadivelu, the iconic Tamil comedian, plays the role of an MLA in the film “Maamannan”, who is contesting for re-election. Vadivelu is prevented from even entering villages and localities for campaigning when technology comes to his rescue and he reaches out to the voters through social media.

Similarly, when Karuppu @ Muruganantham was campaigning for BJP during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, a group of Muslims assembled to prevent him. The petitioner alleged that Karuppu is a notorious character against whom several criminal cases are pending. On the occurrence date, he entered the petitioner's village along with his supporters who raised slogans against Muslims and indulged in physical violence which caused damage to various properties of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged representation seeking payment of compensation from the State for the damages. Since his request was not considered, the petition came to be filed before the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed, "Right to vote may only be a statutory right. But right to seek votes is a fundamental right. Because democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. One can seek votes in a variety of ways. Parties and candidates hold rallies and meetings. If anyone causes disturbance, it is an electoral offence". 

Stating that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution, the Bench elaborated that one can seek votes in a variety of ways, where parties and candidates hold rallies and meetings.

Referring to Section 127 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Bench clarified that what applies to election meetings would apply with equal force to electoral campaigns also, and candidates/party cadre are entitled to engage in door-to-door campaigning where they can go to any locality or area to peacefully canvass for votes.

Therefore, referring to the decision in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP [(2023) 4 SCC 1], the High Court held that the fundamental right of Karuppu @Muruganantham (eighth respondent) was infringed by the acts of a section of villagers of Mallipattinam.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to apply to the trial court seeking compensation after the trial, stating that jurisdictional criminal courts are seized of the matter and under Section 357 of CrPC, they are competent to award compensation.

Cause Title: Habeeb Muhamed v. Home Secretary and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order