On September 23, an Indian Express investigation revealed an unprecedented rift within the three-member Election Commission of India (EC), with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recording 14 objections over 10 months against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, regarding alleged unilateral changes to rules, voter additions/deletions, and centralised data access, without the Commission’s full approval.
The EC has repeatedly introduced administrative innovations to realise this ‘constitutional promise’. More concerningly, the consequences extend beyond the loss of voting rights. Reportedly, several State schemes use electoral rolls to establish eligibility, including the Goa Mediclaim Scheme. The scheme covers super-speciality treatments unavailable in government hospitals, such as dialysis, angioplasty, open-heart surgery, transplants, chemotherapy and cochlear implants, and is available only to State voters. This issue has once again cast a spotlight on the ‘right to vote’, the foundational processes of India’s electoral machinery, and the genesis of India’s ‘universal adult suffrage’ (UAS). India’s constitutional promise of the ‘right to vote’ differs significantly from that of many Western democracies. Reflecting the flawed belief, espoused by thinkers like J.S. The legal status of the ‘right to vote’ in India has long been debated, and whether it is classified as a statutory, constitutional, or fundamental right determines how easily it can be changed, how it is enforced, and the level of legal protection it receives. Although Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and K.T. Shah proposed including it in the Constitution’s fundamental rights part, the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee ultimately rejected the idea. Importantly, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Nayar v. not political parties, the court in Lakshmi Charan Sen v While the right to inclusion or objection in electoral rolls is conferred on individuals. A.K.M. Given India’s party-based Parliamentary system, such vigilance will help in preserving ‘electoral integrity’. Elevating the ‘right to vote’ to fundamental status would not diminish the EC’s authority to purify rolls; it would instead subject that authority to the heightened standard of judicial review reserved for fundamental rights, ensuring that the drive to centralise electoral administration is always weighed against, rather than allowed to override, the citizen’s claim to be counted. In a democracy where software now mediates the relationship between the voter and the ballot, the constitutional status of the ‘right to vote’ can no longer remain a matter of legislative grace.
The report also found that 97 eligible voters from Goa were excluded from the electoral roll after the centralised ECINet software prevented ground-level Electoral Registration Officers (ERO) from reversing decisions. Universal male suffrage emerged only in 1918, and women were granted the ‘right to vote’ a decade later in 1928. In the U.S., although the 15th and 19th Amendments extended voting rights to African Americans (1870) and women (1920), systemic barriers such as poll taxes and literacy tests continued to disenfranchise many for decades thereafter. This inclusive vision was operationalised through two key laws: the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls; and the 1951 Act, which regulates election conduct, candidature, and electoral offences. Notably, the then Chief Election Commissioner Sukumar Sen, faced with the task of enrolling 173 million largely illiterate voters, turned a logistical hurdle into a democratic breakthrough by introducing election symbols, making UAS practically accessible. Union of India (2006) held that the ‘right to elect’ is a statutory right under Section 62 of the RPA, 1951, and not a fundamental or constitutional right. Hassan Uzzaman (1985) observed that in a largely illiterate and politically unaware electorate, parties should take steps to ensure eligible voters are included, and ineligible ones are removed.
Mill, that voting should be reserved for the “enlightened”, countries like the U.K. initially restricted the franchise to male property owners.
