Summary of Arguments
1.No, the fundamental rights under Part III of the constitution cannot be enforced
against BPP, a private party because it is not a part of Article 12 and does not fall
under Article 12, Private entity is not a part of state or state agency,BPP is a private
political party with its own organization structure and governance which are different
from govt. Entities.
2.No, Section 5 of the representation of the people Act,1951 is a not violative of
fundamental rights, namely Articles 14 (Equality before of Law) & 19(a) (Freedom of
speech of expression) Vachejan constitution because it is a statutory rights and it must
be held that the right to vote is subject to limitation imposed by statue which can be
exercised only in manner which provided by the statue , the restrictions which are
imposed by Section 5 are necessary for upholding for the free and fair elections.
Arguments advanced by Defendant
1. The representation of peoples act section 5 of article 62 is not violative of
fundamental rights. It is statutory rights not the fundamental rights and there are some
limitations imposed by the statue. For the reason it is not violative because restricting
voting rights for prisoners is justified due to logistical challenges of ensuring free and
orderly fair elections,Permitting permission which may require a considerable police
force could strain resources and security arrangements.
2. In this case Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs Union of India & ors on 9 july 1997
It is said by the court that right to vote is subject to legal limitations and cannot be
challenged based on constitutional fundamental rights. Restriction On Prisoners is
valid and not it will be held by the court that it is not unreasonable. This judgement
can be taken as a precedent.
3. In NP.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning officer Namakkal constituency and other ,
[1952] 1 SCC 94
Right to vote or run for election is not a fundamental civil right but is established by
specific laws and is subject to the limitations set by those laws. It will be applicable in
present case.
4.Jumna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lacchi RAM, the constitution Bench reaffirmed that the
right to contest elections is a statutory,not a common law right,and it must be
excercise according to thJyoti Baasu v. Debi Ghosal,(1982) 1 SCC 691
e conditions set by the statutes without influenced by fundamental rights under article
3 of the constitution. There are various judgements which supports my claim like
Chief election commr. v. Jan chaukidar, (2013) 7 SCC S07 : (2013) 3 SCC . Kuldeep
Nayar vs Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1