Patna High Court Dismisses RJD MLA's Bail Plea To Campaign In Bihar Polls; Election Canvassing Not A Fundamental Right And Stresses Need To Keep Criminal Elements Out Of Politics
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha rejected the plea of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MLA, who had sought interim bail to campaign for himself during the ongoing Bihar Assembly elections. The Court held that the right to canvass and campaign is not a fundamental or constitutional right but merely a statutory one, subject to restrictions imposed by law. It observed that an undertrial in custody cannot claim such liberty when already facing multiple criminal cases and pursuing regular bail. Finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant intervention under Article 226, the Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant provisional release for electioneering.
The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, approached the High Court seeking provisional release for four weeks to file nomination and conduct election campaigning for the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He alternatively sought custody parole in three criminal cases registered at Khagaul Police Station. The petitioner asserted that he was a sitting MLA and a nominated candidate of a national political party. He stated that criminal cases had been instituted against him due to political hostility and that he had been acquitted in several of them. Two bail petitions were pending—one before the trial court and another before the High Court.
The petitioner claimed that campaigning was essential to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and that keeping a contesting candidate in custody violated constitutional principles. He relied on judicial precedents where interim release was granted to undertrials for election-related purposes. He submitted that he had already filed his nomination pursuant to court orders and now sought release solely for campaigning.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the writ was not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedies, including pending bail applications. It stated that the petitioner had multiple criminal antecedents and was involved in serious offences, including those under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The State argued that releasing him could pose a threat to witnesses and voters and submitted that the right to campaign was neither a fundamental nor statutory right. It relied on various Supreme Court decisions on limits of writ jurisdiction, the nature of electoral rights, and concerns about misuse of interim bail during elections.
The State further asserted that the petitioner approached the Court belatedly, despite having sufficient time to seek interim bail from appropriate forums. It contended that no exceptional circumstances existed warranting invocation of Article 226.
The Court recorded that the petitioner sought provisional bail or custody parole under Article 226 for campaigning purposes and that regular bail applications were already pending. It noted the Supreme Court’s view in Mohd. Tahir Hussain that “right to campaign or canvass is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional or a human right. It is not even a right recognized under any statute.”
The Court further noted the Supreme Court’s caution that allowing interim bail for contesting elections would “open a Pandora’s box inasmuch as in this country election in some form takes place throughout the year and the accused persons in jail may take undue benefit of it.” It observed that accused persons might seek bail without genuine electoral intent, resulting in “a flood gate of litigation which ought not to be permitted so as to widen the scope of grant of interim bail.”
The Court recorded the Supreme Court’s views regarding restrictions on voting by prisoners: “A person who is in prison as a result of his own conduct… cannot claim equal freedom of movement, speech and expression with the others who are not in prison.” It noted that restrictions on prisoners during elections were not unreasonable and that canvassing could occur through means not requiring physical movement.
The Bench also stated that the right to contest or be elected was a statutory right: “Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation.” It recorded that the right to vote itself was statutory.
On maintainability, the Court noted that Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised when “an equally efficacious remedy is available.” It cited that the writ court intervenes only in cases of “breach of fundamental rights… violation of natural justice… excess of jurisdiction… or challenge to vires of statute.” The Court found none of these circumstances present.
The Court further recorded that balancing citizen rights and undertrial rights must lean towards public interest: “The people of India should be given a choice to elect people with clean image… allowing a person with criminal antecedents of serious nature would not be in larger interest of the society.”
The Court held that “I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Y. C. Verma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate; Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Adarsh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Saloj Kumar Rai, Advocate; Mr. Khalil Faizan, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Deo Varman, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate; Mrs. Prinyanka Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General; Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG-3; Mr. Raju Patel, AC to AG; Mr. Suraj Sharma, AC to AAG-3; Ms. Vertikka K. Kashyap, Advocate.
Case Title: Rit Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2775 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Jha
