New Delhi, April 17 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday held that while participation in elections is vital to a democracy, citizens cannot be compelled to cast their vote, underscoring that awareness, and not coercion, is the appropriate means to strengthen electoral participation. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said that any move to impose penal or other consequences for not voting falls squarely within the "policy domain" of the legislature and cannot be judicially mandated. "The issues raised fall within the policy domain," said the bench in a brief order, disposing of a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking criminal and other restrictions against individuals who abstain from voting. The court granted liberty to the petitioner, Ajay Goel, to approach the appropriate authorities. During the hearing, the bench pushed back strongly against suggestions that non-voters should face punitive consequences or be denied state benefits. "So should we direct their arrest?" asked the CJI, adding that India's democratic framework is built on trust in citizens. "All are expected to go. If they don't go, they don't go. So all that is needed is awareness. But we cannot compel," Justice Kant added. The court also flagged the practical realities that may prevent citizens from voting. "If a person who is poor says, 'I will earn my wages - how do I vote?' What should we say?" remarked the CJI, highlighting that economic compulsions and personal circumstances can influence participation. In a lighter moment that underscored the bench's point, the CJI referred to justice Bagchi, noting that his home state of West Bengal is scheduled to go to polls on April 29. "If we accept this, then my brother justice Bagchi should leave court work and go to West Bengal to vote, although it's a working day," he said. Justice Bagchi responded that "judicial work is also important.it is as good as an essential service." Under the constitutional scheme, the right to vote is not a fundamental right but a statutory one, flowing from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. While Article 326 of the Constitution guarantees adult suffrage, the mechanics of voting, including eligibility and procedures, are governed by legislation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that voting is a statutory right coupled with a constitutional underpinning, rather than an enforceable duty. At the same time, the court has expanded the quality of that right. In the NP Ponnuswami case (1952), the Supreme Court held that the right to vote is a statutory right, followed by the top court judgment in the Jyoti Basu case (1982), when it held that voting is not a common law or fundamental right; it exists only by statute. Similarly, in Kuldip Nayar Vs Union of India (2006), the court clarified that the right to vote is statutory, even as it plays a crucial role in the democratic framework. In its landmark 2013 judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs Union of India, it recognised the right of voters to reject candidates through the "None of the Above" (NOTA) option, holding that free and fair elections require not just participation but meaningful choice. While the Constitution under Article 51A sets out fundamental duties of citizens, including upholding democratic values, it does not expressly mandate voting as a legally enforceable obligation. Several countries across the world, mostly in Latin America, have experimented with compulsory voting, often backed by penalties for abstention. In India, however, attempts to introduce such measures have remained largely within the realm of legislative debate, with no nationwide framework mandating voting....