Convicts And Undertrials Can't Be Allowed To Vote: Madras High Court Dismisses Detenu's Plea To Vote In 2026 TN Assembly Elections

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after taking note of the law in Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the right to vote and bars persons confined in prison from voting.

As per Section 62 (5) of the Act, 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. A proviso has been provided in the act, as per which, the provision does not apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law in force.

In the present case, the court noted that apart from the preventive detention order against the petitioner, there were two more criminal cases in which he had been remanded. Thus, the court noted that his prayer could not be entertained, in light of the legal position, and thus dismissed the plea.

The petitioner, Hari Nadar, submitted that he was remanded on January 8, 2026, and sent to Puzhal prison. He claimed that a false case had been lodged against him and he was detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.

Nadar submitted that no punishment or finality had been made out against him in any court of law, but his fundamental right to vote and contest in elections had been affected since he was under custody in prison as a detenu by the action of the detaining authority.

The petitioner argued that his fundamental right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution was being violated as he was not being permitted to vote. He also submitted that, though he had given representations to the jail authorities, he was informed that he would not be permitted to poll since he was under detention. He also informed the court that though he had given his nomination papers to the jail authorities to be given to the Returning Officer, the same were not forwarded, leading to rejection of his candidature.

When the matter came up before the bench on Wednesday, the court initially expressed its willingness to permit the plea since those under preventive detention were allowed to vote under the Representation of People Act.

However, the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India and the Additional Advocate General informed the bench there were totally three criminal cases against the petitioner, which were under investigation, and thus, he could not be permitted to vote in the elections.

The court, noting that Nadar's case would not fall within the exception provided under the Act, was not inclined to accept his prayer and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Mahaveer Shivaji

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel, Mr Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Hari Nadar v The Election Commission of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 178

Case No: WP 16236 of 2026