ORDER : Whether an under trial prisoner has a right to vote in elections is the question involved in this writ petition. 2. The son of the petitioner, Irpa Rama Rao, was arrested in Cr.No.8 of 2021 of Cherla Police Station on 05.02.2021 and produced before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class (Special Court for Naxal Cases), Khammam, and remanded to judicial custody. Since then he is in judicial custody. It is stated that the son of the petitioner is an elected member of the Mandal Praja Parishad from Kurnapalli, Cherla Mandal; As on date, he is a voter in the election of the Telangana Legislative Council of Khammam Constitution; As the tenure of the previously elected members of the Telangana Legislative Council is expiring on 04.01.2022 and the term of the elected member comes to an end on 04.01.2022, the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued notification for conducting elections to the Telangana Legislative Council through its notification No.ECI/PN/92/2021 dated 09.11.2021; As per the schedule, the date of poll for electing the members of Telangana Legislative Council, Khammam District, is 10.12.2021. 3. It is further stated that as the son of the petitioner is in prison as an under trial prisoner, unless he is produced with escort before the concerned polling booth on 10.12.2021, he cannot exercise his right to vote for electing the Member of Telangana Legislative Council from Khammam Constituency. The members of the Telangana Legislative Council are to be elected by the elected candidates of Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats, Cantonment Boards, Zilla Praja Parishads and Mandal Praja Parishads. The name of the son of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.53 of the electoral roll for the polls at Polling Station 1 – Bhadrachalam, Meeting Hall. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if her son is not allowed to cast his vote, his valuable right to vote for protecting the rights of people, who have elected him, will be defeated. It is contended that in order to protect the democratic right i.e. right to vote, which is a valuable right in democracy, it is just and necessary to enable him to cast vote on the date of polling. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Election Commission of India / respondent No.2, and perused the material on record. 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Election Commission of India / respondent No.2, and perused the material on record. 5. The learned counsel for the Election Commission of India has submitted that there is a bar for the petitioner, who is an under trial prisoner, to vote under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). The said provision is reproduced hereunder : “62. Right to Vote.- (1) … (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force.” 6. The learned counsel for the Election Commission of India has further submitted that the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision was questioned before the Supreme Court in ANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN v. UNION OF INDIA, (1997) 6 SCC 1 and it was held that there is no fundamental right to vote and it is only statutory right. The Supreme Court made the following observations : “4. It is settled that Article 14 permits reasonable classification which has a rational nexus with the object of classification. The question is whether the classification made by sub-section (5) of Section 62 is reasonable or not. 5. There are provisions made in the election law which exclude persons with criminal background of the kind specified therein, from the election scene as candidates and voters. The object is to prevent criminalisation of politics and maintain probity in elections. Any provision enacted with a view to promote this object must be welcome and upheld as subsisting the constitutional purpose. The elbow room available to the legislature in classification depends on the context and the object for enactment of the provision. The existing conditions in which the law has to be applied cannot be ignored in adjudging its validity because it is relatable to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Criminalisation of politics is the bane of society and negation a of democracy. It is subversive of free and fair elections which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Criminalisation of politics is the bane of society and negation a of democracy. It is subversive of free and fair elections which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Thus, a provision made in the election law to promote the object of fight and fair elections and facilitate maintenance of law and order which are the essence of democracy must, therefore, be so viewed. More elbow room to the legislature for classification has to be available to achieve the professed object. 6. The effect of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Act is that any person who is confined in prison while serving a sentence of imprisonment on his conviction for any offence or is under lawful confinement in a prison or in a police custody for any reason is not entitled to vote in an election, but this restriction does not apply to a person subjected to any kind of preventive detention. … 8. There are other reasons justifying this classification. It is well known that for the conduct of free, fair and orderly elections, there is need to deploy considerable police force. Permitting every person in prison also to vote would require the deployment of a much larger police force and much greater security arrangement in the conduct of elections. A part from the resource crunch, the other constraints relating to availability of more police forces and infrastructure facilities are additional factors to justify the restrictions imposed by sub-section (5) of Section 62. A person who is in prison as a result of his own conduct and is, therefore, deprived of his liberty during the period of his imprisonment cannot claim equal freedom of movement, speech and expression with the other who are not in prison. The classification of persons in and out of prison separately is reasonable. Restriction on voting of a person in prison result automatically from his confinement as a logical consequence of imprisonment. A person not subjected to such a restriction is free to vote or not to vote depending on whether he wants to go to vote or not; even he may choose not to go and cast his vote. In view of the restriction on movement of a prisoner, he cannot claim that he should be provided the facility to go and vote. In view of the restriction on movement of a prisoner, he cannot claim that he should be provided the facility to go and vote. Moreover, if the object is to keep persons with criminal background away from the election scene, a provision imposing a restriction on a prisoner to vote cannot be called unreasonable.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if there are restrictions under the Act for a person to vote, still there is no bar for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and permit the son of the petitioner to vote, more particularly, because the petitioner has to be presumed to be innocent and not so far convicted. 8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no distinction made between a convict or under trial prisoner under Section 62(5) of the Act. The provision covers all the persons confined in a prison including an under trial prisoner. In fact, the Supreme Court in the judgment supra has also dealt with the aspect of under trial prisoner by taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein (see para 3). 9. The petitioner is an under trial prisoner and cannot claim rights on par with a free citizen (not involved in any crime). Though the petitioner has not given any details of bail applications filed by him, obviously, the petitioner was not able to come out of jail, as his bail applications might have been dismissed. It is not as if there is no remedy available, to the petitioner, under the Criminal Procedure Code, which is the relevant statute for securing bail. Having not availed such remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the route of so-called violation of fundamental rights, more particularly, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held in a plethora of decisions that right to vote is not a constitutional right but statutory right subject to limitations envisaged therein. Nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking bail at least for limited purpose of casting vote. Having not availed that remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this Court on the premise of violation of fundamental rights. There are no merits in the writ petition. Nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking bail at least for limited purpose of casting vote. Having not availed that remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this Court on the premise of violation of fundamental rights. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.