S. Radhakrishnan v. Union Of India, (SC) BS193302

S. Radhakrishnan v. Union Of India, (SC) BS193302 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- AS Anand CJ., S.Rajendra Babu, R.C.Lahoti, JJ.

WP (C) 1028 of 1990. D/d. 17.8.1999.

S. Radhakrishnan - Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India & Ors - Respondent

Representation of the people Act, 1951, Section 62(5) - Validity of Section 62(5) - Any person who is confined in prison while sewing sentence of imprisonment not entitled to cast his role in an election - Said restriction not application to a person in custody of an account of preventive detention - Held, object of Section 62(5) is to prevent criminaligation of politics and maintain probity in elections - Hence, same in valid - Anusul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and others, relied on.

[Para 2]

Case Referred :-

Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. union of India

ORDER

1. In this writ petition, in substance the challenge is to the validity of Sub - section 5 of Section 62 of the Representation of The People Act, the effect whereof is that any person who is confined in prison while serving a sentence of imprisonment on his conviction for any offence or is otherwise in lawful confinement in prison or in police custody for any reason, is not entitled to cast his vote in an election. This restriction, however, dos not apply to a person who is in custody on account of any kind of preventive detention.

2. The issue raised in this petition is no longer res - integra. In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. union of India and Ors., a three Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Verma, CJI (as His Lordship then was) examined the ambit and scope of Section 62(5) of the Representation of The People Act, 1950 and after observing that criminalization of politics is the bane of society and negation of democracy, rejected the challenge to the validity of the said Section. It was opined that the object of Section 62(5) is to prevent criminalization of politics and maintain probity in elections and that any provision which furthers that aim and promotes the object has to be welcomed, as sub - serving a great constitutional purpose. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the three Judge Bench in Anukul Chandra Pradhan's case (supra) and are not persuaded to take a different view. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.