On Friday, February 8, the Supreme Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation challenging provisions in the electoral manual that permit students studying outside their home constituency to transfer their names to the electoral rolls of their place of education.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. Justice Kumar clarified that students studying away from their resident constituency have two options: either travel back to their enrolled constituency to vote or shift their electoral enrolment to the constituency where they are pursuing their education.
The petitioner's counsel, P.K. Mullick, contended that permitting such transfers raises concerns about whether voters can meaningfully express their opinion. He argued that a student from one state, such as Uttar Pradesh, studying in another state like Telangana, may not be well-informed about the local issues and socio-political dynamics of the new constituency.
“A student from UP studying in Telangana would be totally disconnected from the political discourse....a temporary student, he is not concerned with the long term development of the area, he is not know the language etc”
In response, the Chief Justice emphasized that the provision allowing students to vote from their place of study ensures a meaningful expression of opinion. He further noted that restricting students from voting in their educational constituency could negatively impact overall voter turnout in elections.
“There are practical difficulties; the number of voters we have in India will be...”
He also pointed out that Justice Sanjay Kumar himself would have to travel to Hyderabad, his hometown, to cast his vote, as the postal ballot system is currently limited to specific categories such as defense personnel and senior citizens. This, he suggested, highlights the challenges faced by individuals who are away from their registered constituencies and underscores the importance of allowing students to transfer their electoral enrollment to their place of study.
“Even we (judges) don't get it (provision of postal ballot), my brother was saying even he has to go there to cast his vote”
Justice Kumar added, “Where do we draw the line? We are not isolated in this- people who are transferred, living in another place or whatever reason - they can always say I am staying here but I can't go there (to original constituency), therefore give me a postal ballot. The Court also rejected the petitioner's proposal to implement the 'Electronically Transmissible Postal Ballots' system, which is currently used for overseas Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).
The bench while dismissing the petition recorded:
“In view of the manual of electoral rolls, document in addition to clause 13.6.1.3, we are not inclined to proceed further with the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.”
Notably, Clause 13.6.1.3 of the Manual of Electoral Rolls states that students residing as tenants at their place of study have the option to register as electors either at their native residence with their parents or guardians or at the address of their hostel, lodge, or landlord where they temporarily reside for educational purposes. Additionally, the provision specifies that applications for transfer of electoral registration can only be approved if the students are enrolled in courses offered by recognized universities.
info@adhwaitha.com