The Supreme Court Today (Oct 21) sought the response of the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to a plea challenging uncontested elections when there is only one candidate contesting the election. The petition contends that rules allowing the same prevent voters from rejecting the sole candidate using the NOTA option.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court requested a response from both the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a plea challenging uncontested elections, where only one candidate is in the race. The plea raises concerns about the validity of elections in such scenarios and calls for scrutiny of relevant legal provisions.
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan also asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to assist in the case, reflecting the seriousness of the issue. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Harsh Parashar appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a well-known policy think tank.
Vidhi’s petition specifically challenges Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in conjunction with Rule 11 and Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
According to the petition, these rules, which permit the election of lone candidates “unopposed,” should be abolished. Vidhi contends that these provisions prevent voters from exercising their right to reject candidates through the None of the Above (NOTA) option.
“This is a violation of a fundamental right, as in its judgement in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1 this Hon’ble Court has held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing the NOTA option on an EVM is protected in direct elections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,”
-the plea stated.
The think tank emphasized that voters in constituencies with only one candidate are being unfairly denied the choice to express dissent through NOTA, a right enshrined in the Constitution.
Additionally, the petition pointed out the irrational distinction made between voters in constituencies with a single candidate and those with multiple candidates.
“The only evident purpose for original enactment was to reduce the financial outlay on conducting elections and with giant developmental strides made by the nation, the same has become redundant,”
-the plea argued, stressing that this objective is now outdated.
Vidhi further noted that since 1989, there has been a steady decline in the number of uncontested seats in elections to the House of the People. However, the rate of decline has been slower in State Legislative Assemblies, where uncontested seats remain more prevalent.
The plea also raised concerns about transparency, pointing out that voter turnout is not recorded in constituencies where elections are uncontested. This lack of transparency undermines the democratic process and leaves gaps in electoral data, according to the petitioner.
By seeking reforms in this area, the petition aims to ensure that voters retain the right to reject candidates and that elections, even in constituencies with only one candidate, are conducted in a more transparent and democratic manner.
CASE TITLE:
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Union of India and anr.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NOTA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
