Is compulsory voting feasible in the Indian context? | Explained

The story so far:

The Election Commission has announced the poll schedule for five Assembly elections to be held in April-May 2026. In a separate hearing before the Supreme Court on a poll-related matter, the court raised questions regarding mandatory voting in elections.

What is the right to vote in India?

Article 326 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to vote without any discrimination. It provides that any citizen who is not less than 18 years old and is not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law on certain grounds is entitled to be registered as a voter.

Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, requires a citizen to be at least 18 years old and ordinarily resident in a constituency to be registered as an elector. Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides the right to vote to every person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of a constituency. In various cases, the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is a statutory right.

Should voting be made compulsory?

Voting is essential for a functional democracy, but it is neither a fundamental duty nor a legal duty in India. Proposals for compulsory voting have long been debated.

The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms, set up in 1990, did not favour compulsory voting, citing practical difficulties in implementation. Instead, it recommended improving voter participation through awareness campaigns.

The Law Commission, in its 255th report (2015), discussed the issue in detail. Compulsory voting does result in increased voter turnout by an average of about 7%. Nevertheless, this increase in participation is a direct corollary of the severity and strict enforcement of penalties for not voting.

Some democracies, such as Australia and several Latin American countries, have provisions for compulsory voting. In Australia, Argentina, and Brazil, voters may be fined if they fail to vote without valid reasons. In Peru, certain public goods and services are denied to non-voters.

Penalising non-voters by imposing fines or restricting their access to government services is an extremely harsh measure that will not work in the Indian context. From a constitutional perspective, compulsory voting could be seen as violating the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1).

What can be the way forward?

Low voter turnout can result in candidates winning by securing a minority of the total votes in a constituency.

However, as discussed in the Law Commission report, compulsory voting is neither desirable nor feasible in India. The solution lies in fostering enthusiasm amongst voters to exercise their right to vote through innovative campaigns, especially using social media.

For migrant workers, stricter implementation of the statutory holiday on the day of polling, coupled with an increase in transport facilities by running special buses and trains, can effectively increase participation. With the advent of newer technologies, robust and secure methods acceptable to all stakeholders for remote voting should be considered.

(Rangarajan R. is a former IAS officer and author of ‘Courseware on Polity Simplified.’ He currently trains at Officers IAS academy. Views expressed are personal)