"It can't be that when you are confronted with something, you will say you are not pressing it," CJ Sharma remarked.

The Court also remarked that the Court is being flooded with such PILs.

"When I check the cause list, we are flooded with such cases," the bench said.

The Court directed the BJP leader to Withdraw his plea, the bench further remarked that if Upadhyay does not withdraw his plea, it will impose costs. Upadhyay then proceeded to withdraw his plea.

In his plea, Upadhyay argued that making voting compulsory will improve voter turnout, promote political participation and improve the quality of democracy.

"It ensures that every citizen has a voice and that the government is representative of the people's wishes. When voter turnout is high, the government is more accountable to the people and is more likely to act in their best interests," the plea stated.

It further said that compulsory voting ensures that elected representatives are chosen by a larger and more representative group of people, which will enhance the legitimacy of the government as well as the quality of democracy. In its plea, the BJP leader gave examples of countries like Australia, Belgium, and Brazil, which have implemented compulsory voting and said that that they have seen significant increases in voter turnout and improvements in the quality of democracy.

The PIL sought direction from the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to ensure compulsory voting in Parliament and assembly elections.