This is a foundational Supreme Court judgment on the nature of the right to vote and the bar on judicial interference in elections.
Background
- Case arose during the 1951–52 General Elections.
- N.P. Ponnuswami’s nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer.
- He approached the Madras High Court under Article 226.
- The matter reached the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
- Can courts interfere in the electoral process once elections have begun?
- Is the right to vote / contest elections a fundamental right?
Judgment & Ratio
The Supreme Court held that:
- Right to vote and right to contest elections are NOT fundamental rights.
- They are statutory rights, created and governed by law (Representation of the People Act, 1951).
- Courts cannot interfere mid-election except through election petitions after results.
Constitutional Basis
- Article 329(b) bars judicial intervention in electoral matters except by an election petition.
- Elections must proceed without interruption to ensure certainty and stability.
Key Observations
- Election is a continuous process: from notification to declaration of results.
- Allowing courts to intervene at intermediate stages would:
- Delay elections
- Create uncertainty
- Undermine democratic stability
Significance
- Laid the foundation for:
- Judicial restraint in electoral matters
- Doctrine of non-interference during elections
- Ensured smooth and timely conduct of elections
Comparison with Later Cases
- N.P. Ponnuswami (1952):
Right to vote = statutory, not fundamental. - PUCL v. Union of India (2003):
Voter’s right to know = fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
Voting itself is statutory, but informed voting is constitutionally protected.
