Supreme Court Seeks Union, ECI Response On Plea Seeking Postal Ballot For Students Away From Home

The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India on a public interest litigation seeking a holiday or postal ballot facility to enable students living away from home constituencies to cast their votes in elections.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioner). The senior counsel argued before the Court that unless a person is a member of defense force, or a Union government employee stationed outside the country, or a person under preventive detention, etc., they are not entitled to postal ballot facility. Therefore, students who earned voting right after lowering of age of adult suffrage from 21 to 18 years, stand excluded.

Briefly put, the petition has been filed by one Jayasudhagar J, impleading the Union of India, the Election Commission, and the University Grants Commission. He contends that the present framework disables students from exercising their constitutional right to vote and this omission is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.

"Students, despite being a sizeable and distinct class of electors who face genuine and unavoidable practical impediments in travelling to their home constituencies on polling day, are not recognised as a separate category eligible for any alternative voting mechanism", the plea states.

The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to broaden the scope of postal voting to include students. He highlights that adequate provisions have been made for employees, etc. under Section 135B of the RP Act, but not for students.

He also points out Section 60 of the RP Act and Rule 18 of the Conduct of Election Rules to aver that option of postal ballot voting is available to certain groups who cannot easily vote in person - such as, service voters, voters on election duty, those in preventive detention, etc. However, students living away from home constituencies, who face similar difficulties, have been unfairly excluded, leading to their practical disenfranchisement.

Case Title: JAYASUDHAGAR J v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 52/2026