People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India
India Supreme Court
10 SCC 1 (2013)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
The People’s Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL) (plaintiff) filed a writ petition under Article 23 of the Indian constitution, challenging Rules 41(2) and (3) and Rule 49-0 of the Conduct of Election Rules (the rules). Under these rules, if an Indian voter exercised his or her right not to vote in an election, a government official would note the voter’s decision not to vote in an official form. The PUCL argued the rules violated the secrecy of voting and undermined free and fair elections, which were guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The PUCL, therefore, sought the writ to protect the fundamental right, arguing that the notation in the form about the voter’s decision not to vote violated the voter’s right to freedom of expression. The Indian government (defendant) countered that the right to vote was a statutory right rather than a constitutional or fundamental right, and that given that the right to vote was not fundamental right, the PUCL could not file for a writ under Article 23. The Indian government further argued that under the statutory right to vote, the right to secrecy applied only to voters who exercised the right to choose a candidate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.