Right To Vote & Right to Walk

1. Do you think the time has come to recognise the right to vote as a Fundamental Right? Give reasons with reference to constitutional provisions and judicial decisions.

IN NEWS: In India, voting cannot remain merely a statutory right

In a vibrant democratic republic like India, the vote is the primary instrument of popular sovereignty. However, a long-standing constitutional paradox exists: while democracy is recognized as an unalterable part of the Constitution’s “basic structure,” the individual act of voting has historically been treated as a mere statutory privilege. Given the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence over the last two decades, the time has indeed come to explicitly recognize the core right to vote as a Fundamental Right.

 1. The Traditional Position: A Statutory Right

For over seven decades, the judiciary maintained a conservative, literal interpretation regarding the nature of the ballot.

• Judicial Precedents: In landmark cases such as N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer (1952) and Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to elect and be elected is neither a common law right nor a fundamental right, but a “purely statutory right” created by legislation (principally the Representation of the People Acts). This position was reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006).
• The Original Logic: Because the right to vote is not explicitly listed under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution, early courts believed Parliament required broad latitude to regulate, qualify, or disqualify voters to maintain orderly elections.

2. The Evolving Jurisprudence: “Constitutionalising” the Vote

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded the scope of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), effectively creating a constitutional umbrella over the act of voting.

• The Right to Know (ADR Case, 2002): The Court held that voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal, educational, and financial backgrounds of candidates, stating that an uninformed voter cannot meaningfully participate in a democracy.
• Freedom of Choice (PUCL Case, 2003): The Court drew a sharp distinction between the statutory mechanics of voting and the freedom of voting, ruling that making an informed choice is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
• The Right to Reject (NOTA Judgment, 2013): In introducing “None of the Above,” the Court recognized that a voter’s decision to reject all candidates is a form of political expression. It declared that the secrecy of the ballot—even for those rejecting candidates—is a fundamental facet of expression.

3. The Constitutional Anomaly and Arguments for Elevation

The current legal landscape has created an extraordinary paradox: the components of voting are fundamental, but the final act is not. If the Constitution protects the right to reject all candidates as a fundamental right, it is legally incongruous that it does not fundamentally protect the right to choose one.

Recognizing voting as a Fundamental Right is justified by the following core arguments:

A. The Basic Structure Doctrine

Since Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court has held that democracy and free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Because a democracy cannot exist without voters, keeping the citizen’s primary tool of democratic participation outside the constitutional core is a structural contradiction.

B. The Constitutional Source (Article 326)

The right to vote does not actually originate from Parliament’s statutes; it flows directly from Article 326 of the Constitution, which mandates universal adult suffrage. The Representation of the People Acts merely operationalizes this constitutional mandate. Therefore, being an elector is a constitutional entitlement, not a legislative bounty.

C. Shifting Judicial Trends

In Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023), a Constitution Bench frequently referred to voting as a constitutional right rather than a mere statutory one, with Justice Ajay Rastogi explicitly favoring its elevation to a Fundamental Right.

4. Addressing the Regulatory Concern

Elevating voting to a Fundamental Right does not mean it becomes absolute or immune to regulation. Parliament must retain the power to manage the operational mechanics of elections.

• Reasonable restrictions and regulations—such as minimum age requirements, residency conditions, electoral roll management, and disqualifications for criminal or corrupt practices—would remain entirely valid.
• What would be elevated is the core right of an eligible citizen to participate, shielding it from arbitrary executive or legislative disenfranchisement.

The distinction between statutory and constitutional rights served its purpose in the infancy of the Republic. Today, it lingers as a constitutional anomaly. To say that the right not to vote enjoys fundamental protection under Article 19(1)(a) while the right to vote remains a legislative subordinate is untenable. By explicitly recognizing the right to vote as a Fundamental Right, the judiciary would bridge this gap, aligning the citizen’s ultimate democratic power with the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Source:https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_international/issues/193056/OPS/GJAG6887I.1+GOOG7CIMJ.1.html

2. Safe pedestrian infrastructure is an essential component of inclusive urban governance. Discuss.

IN NEWS: How the right to walk is integral to modernity

In his 1863 essay, Charles Baudelaire linked the act of walking to the very birth of “modernity.” In a truly modern and inclusive democracy, public spaces must cater to all citizens, not just those who own capital or automobiles. Safe pedestrian infrastructure—specifically footpaths and walking zones—is not merely a municipal engineering task; it is an essential pillar of inclusive urban governance. It directly bridges economic equity, public health, environmental sustainability, and fundamental human rights.

1. Pedestrian Infrastructure as a Fundamental Right

Urban governance must move away from car-centric models toward a rights-based approach for pedestrians.

• Constitutional Validation: The Supreme Court of India (via Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar) recognized the Right to Walk safely on footpaths as an extension of Article 19(1)(d) (Freedom of Movement) and Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Challenging Hyper-Capitalist Biases: Inclusive governance actively protects marginalized groups. There is an aggressive urban bias—often voiced by vehicle owners—that pedestrians do not pay “road tax” and are thus economic burdens. Inclusive governance corrects this by asserting that the pedestrian has a primary, constitutionally protected claim on public pathways over private automobiles.

2. Pillars of Inclusive Urban Governance

A. Socio-Economic Equity

In developing nations, a vast majority of the population walks out of economic necessity (the urban poor, daily wage laborers, street vendors, and students).

• The Equalizer: Safe footpaths are the ultimate democratic space. When cities build expansive highways but ignore pavements, they structurally disenfranchise the poor. Inclusive planning ensures that the right to mobility is not gated behind private vehicle ownership.
• Gender and Vulnerable Groups: Well-lit, obstacle-free footpaths are critical for the safety and mobility of women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities (Divyangjan).

B. Preservation of Political and Democratic Spaces

Historically, walking has been the foundational language of Indian resistance and political consciousness—from Mahatma Gandhi’s Dandi March and Subhash Chandra Bose’s ‘Delhi Chalo’ to modern peaceful protests.

• Pavements and streets act as physical forums for public life and civic expression. If cities erase footpaths, they eliminate the spaces where citizens encounter one another, dialogue, and exercise democratic visibility.

C. Public Health and Mental Well-being

As Michel de Certeau noted, walking creates a “long poem” that manipulates rigid urban spaces, allowing for thought, reflection, and mental unknotting. Safe pedestrian infrastructure encourages active mobility, lowering carbon footprints, reducing urban heat islands, and combating lifestyle diseases like obesity and cardiovascular stress.

3. Current Deficits in Urban Pedestrian Planning

• Encroachment and Fragmentation: Footpaths are frequently hijacked by illegal parking, commercial spillover, or poorly placed utility boxes, forcing pedestrians onto dangerous roads.
• The “Flâneur” vs. Reality Paradox: While literature and spiritual history (from Guru Nanak to Siddhartha) celebrate walking as an act of free wandering, the physical reality of modern Indian cities treats the aimless walker with hostility and safety hazards.
• Design Deficiencies: Pavements are often high, discontinuous, lack ramp access, and lack shading, making them hostile to regular use.

4. Way Forward: Framework for Inclusive Pedestrian Governance

To translate the “Right to Walk” from a judicial text into urban reality, city administrators should implement the following measures:

• National Zero-Casualty Pedestrian Policies: Adopt “Vision Zero” frameworks where urban transport design prioritizes pedestrian safety over vehicular speed.
• The “15-Minute City” Design: Decentralize urban utilities so that essential services (healthcare, groceries, education) are accessible within a comfortable 15-minute walk, reducing vehicular reliance.
• Mandatory Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) Budgets: Municipal corporations must allocate fixed, non-divertible budgets specifically for building continuous, tree-shaded, and barrier-free pavements.
• Strict Anti-Encroachment Laws: Clear walking spaces of vehicular parking while creating designated, organized zones for street vendors to balance livelihood rights with pedestrian rights.

Source:https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_international/issues/193056/OPS/GJAG6887L.1+G7DG7D0NA.1.html