(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to consider the representation dated 30.03.2026 and permit petitioner to cast petitioner vote in the election through postal ballot.)
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.
1. Heard.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to permit him to vote in the Assembly Elections, 2026 through postal ballot or in person by considering his representation dated 30.3.2026.
3. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the false case foisted against him, which is politically motivated, he is detained under Act 14/1982 in BBCDEFGISSSV.No.26 of 2026, dated 22.01.2026. Challenging the same, he has also filed HCP No.329 of 2026 before this Court and the same is pending. Earlier, he had contested as a candidate for Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State election in Alangulam Legislative Assembly as an independent candidate. He had also submitted a nomination for the Assembly Election, 2026 for being sent to the Returning Officer of Alangulam Constituency, however, the third respondent did not send it and the same was handed over to his counsel. His nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer. On 30.3.2026, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the fourth respondent seeking to allow the petitioner to cast his vote and make arrangement for polling booths in jail. However, on 15.4.2026, the petitioner was informed that he will not be allowed to vote in the election. Alleging that his voting right has been infringed by the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 3 and 4, by producing the written instructions dated 22.4.2026 received from the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison- II, Chennai, submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody as remand prisoner in connection with Crime No.187/25 registered under Sections 3(5), 310(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 61(2) of BNS, as also he has been detained as TPDA prisoner on 22.1.2026 as per the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. Apart from the above, the petitioner is also facing the following pending cases:
| Sl. No. | Name of Police Station | Crime No. and Section | Name of the Court |
| 1 | DCB, Ariyalur | 01/2026 U/s.318(4), 61(2) BNS | Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur |
| 2 | Peelamedu | 740/2025 U/s.318(4) BNS | Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore |
| 3 | CCB, Chennai | 13/2026 U/s.318(4), 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS | Additional CCB, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore |
6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
7. Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, “RP Act”) provides as under:
“62. Right to vote-
(1) to (4) ...
(5) 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:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force.
Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector.”
8. The constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 62(5) of the RP Act has been upheld by a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Mahendra Kumar Shastri v. Union of India and another((1984) 2 SCC 442) and later by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Advocate, Supreme Court v. Union of India and others((1997) 6 SCC 1).
9. It is not in dispute that Section 62(5) of the RP Act permits persons under preventive detention to exercise their right to vote. The petitioner in his petition stated that he was detained by the Detaining Authority under order dated 22.1.2026 and nothing has been stated in respect of the other cases pending against him.
10. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency((1952) 1 SCC 94), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right, but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it.
11. A prayer for direction to facilitate voting through postal ballot of a person, who is in preventive detention, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P. (Crl.) MD No.2065 of 2026. Vide order dated 10.4.2026, the Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, directed as under:
“5.Considering the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the view that, instead of the prison authorities collecting the willingness of the detenus, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Madurai, shall visit the Central Prison, Madurai, and independently ascertain the willingness of the prisoners who are detained under the preventive detention laws. It is made clear that such exercise shall be confined only to those prisoners who are under preventive detention and not to those in judicial custody or convicted prisoners. The authorities shall ensure that the willingness is obtained in a fair and proper manner from only those prisoners who are in custody purely on the basis of preventive detention. After obtaining such willingness, the same shall be forwarded by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Madurai, to the competent authorities in accordance with the Circular referred to above.”
[emphasis supplied]
12. As stated supra, in the case at hand, there are three more criminal cases pending against the petitioner, which are under investigation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to vote in the ensuing Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election, 2026.
13. A right to vote is a statutory right. The persons convicted of crime are kept away from elections. The RP Act temporarily takes away the power of such persons to vote, even if his name is on the electoral rolls. The name is not struck off, but the qualification to be an elector and the privilege to vote when in the lawful custody of the police is taken away. The relief sought in the writ petition is hit by the statutory prescription in Section 62(5) of the RP Act.
For the aforegiven reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.