top of page

By:

Rahul Gokhale

28 November 2025 at 12:38:16 pm

Can Compulsory Voting Strengthen Democracy?

India’s periodic flirtation with compulsory voting raises the fundamental question of whether participation can be mandated without eroding liberty. While hearing a petition seeking to strengthen the provision of ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) - introduced to ensure that voters dissatisfied with all candidates are not denied their democratic voice - the Supreme Court made a striking verbal observation on a related but far more contentious issue: compulsory voting. Chief Justice Surya Kant and...

Can Compulsory Voting Strengthen Democracy?

India’s periodic flirtation with compulsory voting raises the fundamental question of whether participation can be mandated without eroding liberty. While hearing a petition seeking to strengthen the provision of ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) - introduced to ensure that voters dissatisfied with all candidates are not denied their democratic voice - the Supreme Court made a striking verbal observation on a related but far more contentious issue: compulsory voting. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi wondered whether some mechanism, if not a harsh or punitive one, ought to be devised to ensure greater participation in elections. Though not a formal directive, the remark was significant enough to rekindle a long-standing debate. In a democracy as vast and complex as India’s, even such a passing judicial reflection can reopen fundamental questions about the nature of participation, rights and duties in the electoral process. Animated Debates The idea of compulsory voting is not new to India. It has surfaced repeatedly over the past seven decades in Parliament, in state legislatures, before expert committees and in courtrooms. Each time, it has triggered animated discussion but stopped short of becoming law. One of the most prominent experiments occurred in Gujarat. In December 2009, when Narendra Modi was Chief Minister, a bill was introduced to make voting compulsory in local body elections. It proposed a fine of Rs. 100 for those who failed to vote. The legislation was passed by the state assembly but returned without assent by the then Governor, Dr. Kamla Beniwal. The bill was reintroduced and passed again in 2011. After a change of government at the Centre in 2014, Governor O. P. Kohli granted assent. Yet in 2015, the Gujarat High Court stayed its implementation, observing that the right to vote could not be converted into a ‘duty.’ At the national level too, the matter has resurfaced periodically. The Law Commission, in its 2015 report on electoral reforms, rejected the proposal to make voting compulsory. Nevertheless, private members’ bills continued to appear in Parliament. In 2004, Bachchi Singh Rawat introduced one such bill. In 2009, J. B. Agarwal moved another. Then Union Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily expressed agreement in principle, suggesting that if voting were mandatory, political parties might focus less on mobilising voters and more on substantive issues. Yet he also acknowledged that the choice to vote or not belongs to the citizen. Abstention, he noted, may itself be an expression of dissatisfaction. After 2019, similar proposals emerged again. A private member’s bill introduced by Janardan Singh Sigriwal was debated in the Lok Sabha. Interestingly, members of the same party- BJP - differed in their positions: Rajiv Pratap Rudy and Rajendra Agarwal opposed compulsory voting, while Jagdambika Pal supported it. Eventually, Sigriwal withdrew the bill after the government stated that making voting compulsory was not feasible. In 2022, Deepak Prakash introduced a private member’s bill in the Rajya Sabha raising the same demand. The judiciary has encountered this issue before. In 2009, a cardiologist, Dr. Atul Sarode, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking compulsory voting and even suggesting that electricity or water supply be disconnected for those who abstained. The Court dismissed the petition, terming such punitive measures inhumane. The episode underscored the judiciary’s reluctance to treat voting as a legally enforceable obligation rather than a democratic right. Courts have generally held that the freedom to vote must also include the freedom not to vote, a principle consistent with the broader understanding of individual liberty in a constitutional democracy. Turnout and Legitimacy The principal argument in favour of compulsory voting rests on democratic arithmetic: higher voter turnout, it is argued, strengthens legitimacy. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, turnout stood at 66 percent, marginally lower than the 67 percent recorded in 2019. These figures are neither alarming nor wholly reassuring. Nearly one-third of eligible voters did not cast a ballot. In many constituencies, the winning candidate ultimately represents only 25 to 30 percent of the total electorate. Such numbers inevitably invite questions about the depth and breadth of democratic representativeness. Yet this arithmetic can oversimplify a complex reality. Non-voting stems from multiple causes: faulty electoral rolls, migrant workers unable to return to their home constituencies, logistical barriers, illness, or personal circumstances. At one extreme lies political apathy; at the other, deliberate abstention as a form of protest. To address this diversity of reasons with a single instrument of compulsion risks misunderstanding the problem itself. International experience offers mixed lessons. Australia has enforced compulsory voting since 1924 and consistently records turnout around 90 percent. Belgium also mandates voting, though enforcement is uneven. Argentina’s turnout has fluctuated despite legal compulsion; its 2023 election recorded one of the lowest participation levels since 1983. In Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile, voting is compulsory, yet democratic vitality cannot be attributed to that provision alone. Some proponents argue that compulsion need only be temporary until voting becomes habitual. However, evidence complicates this claim. In the Netherlands, voting was compulsory for 53 years; after repeal, turnout declined by an average of 16 percent. The assumption that civic habit would endure without legal enforcement appears doubtful. Conversely, several established democracies including United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, treat voting as a voluntary act rather than a legal obligation. Their turnout rates fluctuate and are not always impressive. Yet these nations continue to regard the voluntary character of voting as integral to democratic freedom. The broader lesson and underlying moral are worth underscoring: democracy is sustained not merely by participation rates, but by a civic culture in which the choice to vote or to abstain is itself understood as an expression of individual liberty. Liberty and Duty The constitutional dimension in India is equally significant. Voting is recognised as a statutory right with constitutional backing. Transforming it into a legally enforceable duty raises profound questions about liberty and freedom of expression, including the right to abstain. Courts have previously signalled caution against conflating entitlement with obligation. Ultimately, democracy cannot be reduced to turnout statistics alone. Higher participation is desirable, but it must arise from conviction rather than coercion. The health of a democracy depends less on the percentage of ballots cast and more on the credibility of institutions, the fairness of processes and the trust citizens repose in the system. Disillusionment with politics cannot be cured through fines or administrative penalties. Nor can alienation be remedied by legislative fiat. Rather than forcing ballots, efforts should focus on cleaning electoral rolls, making voting accessible to migrant workers, and building voter awareness. Citizens must feel their vote carries weight—that it can influence governance and hold power accountable. The Supreme Court’s recent observation has reopened this debate, but the central question remains: can democracy be strengthened by compulsion? Laws can mandate participation, but they cannot inspire trust or conviction. Democracy thrives not when people are pushed to the polls, but when they show up because they believe their voice truly matters. (The writer is a political commentator. Views personal.)

Bulldozing Lawlessness

Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is right to prioritize law and order over hollow outrage.

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Few leaders in the country demonstrate the same clarity of purpose as Yogi Adityanath. The firebrand chief minister of Uttar Pradesh has made it clear that governance is not about appeasement or empty rhetoric but about action. His administration’s ‘bulldozer model’ is not merely a spectacle but a necessity against lawlessness. Encroachments, illegal constructions and criminal strongholds have no place in a state that aspires to law and order. The Supreme Court may fume over procedural lapses, but Adityanath’s approach resonates with millions who have long suffered under a broken system.


When asked about his administration’s demolition drives in a recent interview, Adityanath, with characteristically bluntness said it was not an achievement, but a need.


The opposition may howl in protest, but his words ring true. Uttar Pradesh, for decades, was plagued by rampant land grabs, unchecked criminal activity, and state apathy. The bulldozer, in this context, is a symbol of governance finally asserting itself against lawlessness. The idea that illegal structures should be demolished is hardly controversial. Yet, critics would rather quibble over procedure than acknowledge the larger truth: for the first time in years, encroachers fear the law.


Adityanath’s strategy is simple but effective. Those who respect the law have nothing to fear; those who flout it face consequences. It is a lesson in governance that is long overdue in India. The view of detractors is disconnected from the ground reality. Some have been particularly incensed that some homeowners were given only a night’s notice before their properties were razed. That may well be a lapse in procedure, but the broader concern should be whether these constructions were legal in the first place.


The judicial system’s moral posturing would be more convincing if it showed equal urgency in addressing the delays and inefficiencies that have allowed encroachment to flourish. Uttar Pradesh’s land mafias, emboldened by years of weak governance, have long exploited legal loopholes to seize property with impunity. Adityanath has shifted the balance in favour of the state, and that is precisely what makes his critics uncomfortable. The idea that the government should first engage in drawn-out legal battles before acting against encroachers is a luxury that Uttar Pradesh can ill afford.


Even more laughable is the notion that the bulldozer is inherently oppressive. On the contrary, it is a tool of both development and enforcement. As Adityanath himself pointed out, bulldozers are not just used for demolitions but also for infrastructure projects. The message is clear: governance must be decisive, not paralysed by endless litigation and bureaucratic red tape. In a state as vast and complex as Uttar Pradesh, only a firm hand can ensure compliance.


Predictably, the opposition has seized upon the Supreme Court’s remarks as a rallying cry against the chief minister. They claim that Adityanath is ruling with an iron fist, disregarding human rights. Yet their argument is disingenuous. The same leaders who now cry foul have turned a blind eye to decades of criminal encroachments and illegal settlements. They would rather the state remain a hostage to land grabbers than accept that forceful action is sometimes necessary.


Adityanath’s real crime, in the eyes of his detractors, is that he has refused to be politically correct. His brand of governance does not entertain the niceties of elite legal discourse. Instead, it delivers results. Uttar Pradesh, once infamous for its lawlessness, is now a state where criminals think twice before acting with impunity.


Ultimately, the bulldozer is a metaphor for the new Uttar Pradesh - one where the rule of law trumps special interests. Adityanath’s critics may never approve of his methods, but they cannot deny his effectiveness. India needs leaders who act, not just pontificate. If the courts are truly concerned about justice, they should spend less time sermonizing about procedural missteps and more time ensuring that the law is enforced fairly and swiftly. Adityanath, for all his bluntness, is doing just that. And for the people of Uttar Pradesh, that is what matters most.

Comments

bottom of page