The right to vote is a core element of democracy, allowing individuals to engage in governance. Nevertheless, marginalized communities, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds and minority groups, often encounter considerable obstacles when attempting to exercise this right. A concerning trend is the abuse of authority by law enforcement officials aimed at obstructing these communities from voting.

Such actions not only threaten the integrity of the democratic process but also worsen existing social inequalities. In India, while the legal framework encompasses several measures designed to protect voting rights, instances of police misconduct continue to occur. This essay examines the legal protections, challenges, and consequences of misuse of power by the police within the electoral process.

Legal Framework for Safeguarding Voting Rights:

Constitutional Measures:
Article 326 of the Indian Constitution affirms that every citizen aged 18 and older has the right to vote, regardless of caste, religion, or gender. This right is essential for democratic engagement.

Article 14 guarantees equality under the law, while Article 15 forbids discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, or place of origin. Together, these articles provide a strong foundation for legal protection against the disenfranchisement of marginalized groups.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
According to Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), it is considered a criminal offence to apply undue influence, which includes coercion and intimidation aimed at discouraging voters from participating, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.

Representation of the People Act, 1951:
According to Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any individual who, in relation to an election governed by this Act, fosters or attempts to foster, based on religion, race, caste, community, or language, sentiments of hostility or animosity between various groups of Indian citizens shall face a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not surpassing ten thousand rupees, or both.

The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
This legislation is designed to tackle the discrimination and violence experienced by SC/ST communities. As stated in section 3 (1) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, any individual (including police officer) who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and coerces or threatens a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to abstain from voting, to vote for a specific candidate, or to vote in a manner contrary to the law shall face a penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of six months, with the possibility of a sentence extending up to five years, along with a monetary fine.

Guidelines Set by the Election Commission of India (ECI):
The Election Commission of India enforces stringent regulations to guarantee that elections are conducted in a free and impartial manner. Among these regulations is the Model Code of Conduct, which stipulates that police personnel are required to maintain a stance of neutrality throughout the electoral process. They must refrain from participating in any actions that might exert influence over the elections. Furthermore, the ECI possesses the power to reassign police officers who are perceived to exhibit bias or favouritism during the electoral period, ensuring that the integrity of the election process is upheld. The Election Commission of India may also initiate disciplinary action against police officers indulging in such partisan act.

Instances of Police Abuse of Authority:
Despite a strong legal framework, there have been multiple reports of police officers allegedly abusing their authority to obstruct marginalized communities from exercising their voting rights. These incidents frequently involve intimidation, unlawful detentions, and the use of force to dissuade voters from accessing polling locations. In certain regions, allegations have emerged regarding police collusion with local politicians to disenfranchise particular communities.

Intimidation and Coercion:
Reports indicate that police officers have employed intimidation tactics, including threats of arrest or violence, motivated checking of voter identity cards and other documents aimed at discouraging voters from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds. Such practices are especially common in areas marked by historical caste or communal conflicts.

Manipulation of Voter Registrations:
In some instances, civil and police administration have been allegedly implicated in the manipulation of voter registration lists, either by removing the names of marginalized voters or by selectively enforcing identification regulations. This strategy is often employed to diminish voter turnout among targeted communities.

Use of Force:
The disproportionate and selective deployment of police forces in neighbourhoods predominantly occupied by marginalized communities has been noted during elections. Such actions can foster an atmosphere of fear, deterring individuals from participating in the electoral process.

As for example, during the third phase of the 2024 general election in Uttar Pradesh, there were claims of police brutality in the Sambhal constituency, where individuals from the minority community reportedly experienced lathi charges and had their identification cards taken away. The police asserted they were acting to prevent voter fraud, while opposition leaders accused them of supporting a specific candidate.

Similar allegations emerged during the 2022 Rampur by-election, when voters from the minority community were allegedly assaulted and prevented from casting their ballots by the police, resulting in a low turnout of only 27.8 percent. This situation allegedly facilitated the victory of the candidate favoured by the police.

Allegations of voter suppression are increasing, encompassing a range of issues such as individuals being omitted from electoral rolls, incidents of physical violence, and the manipulation of electoral boundaries aimed at diminishing the influence of marginalized communities, as seen in places like Assam.

It is also claimed that in certain regions, female police officers are assigned to verify the voter identity cards and other documents of women from minority communities, and they reportedly harass these women by requesting that they remove their veils, using various excuses to deter them from voting.

Legal Remedies and Obstacles:
Although the legal framework is well-defined, the execution of these laws frequently lacks consistency. Those harmed by police misconduct during elections encounter various hurdles in their pursuit of justice.

Insufficient Awareness:
Many voters, especially those from underrepresented communities, do not know their legal rights or the options available to them in instances of police misconduct. This unawareness poses a significant obstacle to holding law enforcement accountable.

Systemic Bias:
Institutional bias often impedes the enforcement of legal measures concerning police misconduct. Complaints against law enforcement officers may not be given the seriousness they deserve, leading to delays or blockages in investigations. Such bias can be intensified by political interference, particularly in regions where local authorities wield considerable influence over the police.

Prolonged Legal Proceedings:
In India, the judicial system is notoriously sluggish, and cases of electoral misconduct can take an extended period to be resolved. This protraction can deter victims from seeking legal recourse and allows those responsible for misconduct to evade accountability

Inadequate Accountability Systems:
While there are frameworks aimed at ensuring police accountability, their practical application remains weak. Internal investigations within police departments regarding misconduct are frequently insufficient, and external oversight agencies often lack the necessary resources or authority to enforce accountability effectively.

Path Forward:
To combat the misuse of authority by police officers that prevents marginalized communities from exercising their voting rights, several actions should be taken:

Reinforcing Legal Enforcement:
There should be a heightened focus on enforcing existing laws. This includes ensuring that allegations of police misconduct during elections are investigated swiftly and fairly.

Bolstering Voter Education:
Voter education initiatives must aim to inform marginalized communities about their rights and the legal options available to them. This education can empower voters to report abuses and pursue justice.

Enhancing Police Accountability:
The law enforcement agencies need to be accountable through independent oversight mechanisms. Strengthening organizations such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and creating independent election monitoring bodies can establish essential checks and balances.

Demonstrating Political Will:
Political leaders must show their dedication to upholding democratic principles by refraining from interfering with law enforcement during elections. The presence of genuine political will is vital for ensuring that police officers of all ranks function impartially and do not abuse their authority.

Judicial Oversight:
Judicial oversight is essential for ensuring that all police officers perform their duties impartially, particularly during elections. Denying marginalized groups, the right to vote not only violates democratic principles but also abuses power, undermining public trust in both the electoral and judicial systems. To protect the integrity of the electoral process, it is crucial that any attempts to disenfranchise voters, especially by law enforcement, face strict legal consequences.

Political Neutrality of Police:
The political neutrality of law enforcement during elections is crucial for maintaining the integrity of democracy. It ensures that police act impartially, without influence from political parties or candidates. This neutrality fosters a safe environment, enabling all citizens, especially marginalized groups, to participate in elections without fear of intimidation or coercion. Neutral police force ultimately strengthens public trust in the electoral system and upholds democratic principles.

Conclusion:
The abuse of authority by police officers to obstruct marginalized populations from participating in the voting process represents a serious infringement on the fundamental tenets of democracy. Although India possesses a robust legal structure designed to safeguard the rights of voters, the real obstacle is in the implementation and enforcement of these laws in practice.

Tackling this pressing issue demands a comprehensive strategy that encompasses legal reforms aimed at closing loopholes, extensive voter education campaigns to ensure that all citizens are aware of their rights, political neutrality in law enforcement and the establishment of more effective accountability systems for law enforcement agencies. It is only through the adoption of such multifaceted measures that we can hope to cultivate an electoral process that is genuinely inclusive and representative of the diverse voices and interests of all citizens.

Reference:

• https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/police-accused-voter-suppression-sambhal-uttar-pradesh
• https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/1/india-election-fairness-concerns-amid-muslim-vote-suppression-allegations