Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India & Ors
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramanium Prasad of Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL (public interest litigation) filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking compulsory voting in elections.
Bench said that voting is a choice and judges are not lawmakers who can pass such directions.
Upadhyay in his plea stated that making voting compulsory will improve the quality of democracy and promote political participation.
He also cited examples of countries like Australia, Belgium, and Brazil, who have implemented compulsory voting.
“It ensures that every citizen has a voice and that the government is representative of the people’s wishes. When voter turnout is high, the government is more accountable to the people and is more likely to act in their best interests”.
The bench said that they cannot force a person in Chennai to come back to his home town in Srinagar and vote there.
The bench asked “You want us to direct the police catch him and send him to Srinagar”.
Bench said that “When I check the cause list, we are flooded with such cases”.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay withdrew the PIL after court said that the court will impose cost.