The Supreme Court declined on Monday the petitions of jailed Nationalist Congress Party MLAs, Nawab Malik and Anil Deshmukh, to be temporarily released and allowed to cast their votes in the Maharashtra Legislative Council elections.
Minutes before the poll closed for voting, a vacation bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia denied their pleas. The NCP leaders had approached the top court challenging the June 17 Bombay High Court order, which had refused to grant them temporary release.
However, the Bench issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the Centre, saying an interpretation of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, would be considered to decided whether arrested lawmakers, MLAs and MPs, could be allowed to vote in elections to Rajya Sabha and legislative councils.
The section bans any prisoner from voting in any election.
The court observed that it was slightly undemocratic that a person who has been elected cannot vote. This will require a deeper consideration, the bench said.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioners, sought an interim relief as the voting was to occur on Monday. She said the lawmakers could temporarily be released, under an escort, to cast their votes in the election.
During the hearing, the bench noted that voting is a constitutional and statutory right, and the question was whether the person in prison was entitled to cast a vote or not.
“If you are in prison, in connection with preventive detention, there's no bar at all but if it's falling under money laundering, prima facie Section 62(5) applies,” the bench told the petitioners’ counsel.
Both NCP leaders were in prison in separate cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Arora argued that by denying her clients’ right to vote, their constituencies were being deprived to cast their vote in the council.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, saying the top court had earlier upheld the validity of Section 62 (5) of the Representation of the People Act. He said that fundamental rights could be curtailed, selectively on touchstones of permissible restrictions.
The top court was hearing the matter on an urgent basis, as requested by the leaders’ counsel.