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.)

The Left’s Hindu Blind Spot

Updated: Apr 1, 2025

Pinarayi Vijayan’s reaction to the ‘Empuraan’ controversy exposes his party’s double standards on free speech and tolerance.

Pinarayi Vijayan
Kerala

Kerala’s Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, has never shied away from branding himself as a champion of free speech – that is, so long as it suits his political leanings. His enthusiastic endorsement of L2: Empuraan, a film that has sparked national outrage for its alleged anti-Hindu and anti-BJP overtones, is a glaring example of his party’s selective outrage. Even as the controversy surrounding the film refuses to die down, Vijayan chose to celebrate its release rather than acknowledge the concerns raised by critics. This ideological hypocrisy has long defined the Left’s approach to dissent in India.


At the heart of the Empuraan controversy lies a sequence depicting the 2002 Gujarat riots, with a key antagonist allegedly modelled on a right-wing figure. Unsurprisingly, the Sangh Parivar and the BJP have slammed the film for peddling a divisive, one-sided narrative. The RSS-affiliated Organiser magazine has called it “a propaganda vehicle designed to deepen religious fault lines.”


Vijayan, however, preferred to indulge in theatrical posturing. Watching the film with his family and publicly endorsing it sends a clear message: narratives that align with his ideological leanings are acceptable, no matter how controversial. Yet, this is the same leader who has, time and again, condemned other artistic expressions for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which Vijayan leads in Kerala, has a long history of taking offense when its own ideological comfort zone is breached. When The Kerala Story - a film critical of radicalization in the state - was released, the CPI(M) joined the chorus calling for a ban, dismissing it as “propaganda.” But when Empuraan triggers backlash for its portrayal of the Gujarat riots, the same party suddenly transforms into a torchbearer of artistic freedom.


The broader problem is the Left’s glaring double standards when it comes to Hindu sentiments. In the name of secularism, leftist leaders and intellectuals have consistently dismissed or trivialized concerns raised by Hindus while championing the grievances of other communities. The Empuraan episode is merely the latest example of this lopsided approach. When controversies arise over films that critique Islam or Christianity, the Left rushes to invoke sensitivity and calls for restraint. However, when Hindu sensibilities are hurt, those protesting are branded as intolerant, regressive, or, worse, communal.


Mohanlal’s decision to issue a public apology and the reported removal of 17 scenes - including riot sequences and depictions of violence against women - suggest that even the filmmakers recognized the contentious nature of their work. The Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) intervention further underscores the validity of the concerns raised. Vijayan’s silence on this development is telling. For a leader who claims to stand against censorship and for free expression, he has shown no interest in defending the artistic autonomy of a film that has been forced to undergo edits. If anything, his endorsement of Empuraan while ignoring the backlash it has generated reeks of political opportunism.


The Kerala Chief Minister’s stance on Empuraan is emblematic of a deeper issue within Indian politics: the weaponization of artistic freedom. The Left routinely invokes free speech as a defencewhen its narratives are under fire but quickly discards the principle when confronted with dissenting viewpoints. Vijayan’s selective outrage reflects this broader hypocrisy. If free speech is to mean anything in India, it cannot be conditional upon ideological convenience.


The Empuraan controversy ultimately is about the deeper fault lines in Indian discourse. The backlash against its alleged biases is not an isolated reaction but a reflection of growing resentment against the systematic dismissal of Hindu concerns. Pinarayi Vijayan, with his glaring double standards, has only reinforced this perception. Until political leaders apply the same standards of tolerance across the ideological spectrum, their proclamations of secularism and free speech will continue to ring hollow.

Comments

bottom of page