Authorities considering voting rights for prison inmates - AG tells SC

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda   

The Attorney General’s Department informed the Supreme Court yesterday that it is examining the possibility of implementing a programme to allow eligible prisoners and remand inmates to cast their votes at elections.  

State Counsel Sajith Bandara, representing the Attorney General, made this statement during the hearing of a writ petition filed by former prisoner Sudesh Nandimal Silva.   
In his petition, Nandimal Silva requested the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to establish guidelines that would enable eligible prisoners and remand inmates to vote in Presidential and Parliamentary elections, as well as referendums.   
Counsel Lakshan Dias, appearing for the petitioner, argued that 66 countries have already granted voting rights to prisoners and highlighted that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has also recommended the same for Sri Lankan inmates.   
Meanwhile, the State Counsel stated that both the Election Commission and the Prison Department are currently assessing the feasibility of introducing a voting mechanism for prisoners.   
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.H.M.D. Nawaz, Achala Wengappuli, and Menaka Wijesundera, scheduled the petition for further hearing on August 28.   
The petitioner stated that, according to the Prisons Department data as of May 2024, there are 19,867 remand prisoners in Sri Lanka, accounting for 64.7% of the total prison population. These individuals, alongside other eligible prisoners, are deprived of their constitutional right to vote due to the absence of a proper voting mechanism within the prison system.   

The petitioner states that the power to issue requisite guidelines to lay down a mechanism to facilitate the eligible prisoners or inmates in remand custody to vote is thereby directly vested in the Election Commission by virtue of Articles 103 and 104B of the Constitution and the failure to adhere to Articles 103 and 104B by the Commission would therefore be deemed as an act of illegality which would require judicial review.