The Supreme Court asked whether the NOTA option has truly improved the “quality” of elected leaders, observing that it cannot fill a seat even if it gets maximum votes. The Court is hearing a plea seeking NOTA in uncontested elections and has listed the matter for March 17.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether the introduction of the NOTA (None of the Above) option in Assembly and Lok Sabha elections has actually improved the quality of elected representatives. The Court observed that even if NOTA gets the highest votes, it cannot occupy or “fill up” a seat.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges a provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition argues that the law does not allow voters to choose the NOTA option in elections where only one candidate is contesting.
ALSO READ: A Vote Against All, Yet For Democracy: CJI BR Gavai Highlights Power of NOTA in India
The plea has been filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. It seeks to make the NOTA option compulsory in all elections, including those where there is only a single candidate in the fray. At present, under Section 53(2) of the 1951 Act, if the number of candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer must immediately declare them elected without holding a poll.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi raised an important question about the effectiveness of NOTA. He asked,
“Has the quality of the leaders elected improved with NOTA.”
He further observed that NOTA cannot become a real alternative because it cannot occupy a seat even if it secures the maximum number of votes.
The Bench also made broader observations about voter participation. It said that there should be serious efforts to make voting compulsory in India so that better candidates are elected. The Court also expressed concern over the growing trend that educated and financially well-off citizens often do not vote, while uneducated voters and women turn out in larger numbers.
Attorney General R Venkataramani opposed the PIL and argued that the Court should not examine such theoretical questions. He submitted,
“We are entering into too many hypothetical bases. Law cannot be tested like this. The right to vote is a constitutional right.”
The Supreme Court has now listed the matter for further hearing on March 17.
NOTA was introduced in 2013 following a landmark judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India. In that case, the top court directed the Election Commission to provide a NOTA option on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), recognising a voter’s right to express disapproval of all candidates.
The present petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This provision deals with the procedure in contested and uncontested elections. It states that if the number of contesting candidates equals the number of seats, the candidates shall be declared elected without a vote.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | If NOTA Gets Maximum Votes, Then What?: CJI Sends Notice to Poll Body
The plea also seeks to strike down Rule 11 along with Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 11 provides for the publication of the list of contesting candidates and the declaration of results in uncontested elections.
According to the petition, in direct elections such as those to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, voters are denied the opportunity to cast a negative vote if there is only one candidate. The plea states,
“In direct elections (elections to the House of the people and state legislative assemblies) which are uncontested, the impugned sub-section (2) prevents voters from being able to cast a ‘negative vote’ by choosing the ‘none of the above’ option if there is only one candidate.”
The petition further claims that since 1952, more than 82 lakh voters have been deprived of their right to vote in Lok Sabha elections due to the operation of Section 53(2). It argues that the provision violates constitutional principles.
The plea states,
“The impugned Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in as much as it prevents voters from exercising their right to choose the NOTA option in direct elections which are uncontested, is ultra vires the Constitution, and is liable to be read down or struck down to ensure conformity with the same.”
The petition relies on earlier Supreme Court rulings which held that the right to cast a negative vote by pressing NOTA on the EVM is part of a voter’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
However, another judgment of the apex court clarified that this right applies only to direct constituency-based elections and not to indirect elections that follow a system of proportional representation.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on October 21, 2024, agreed to examine the issue and issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission. With constitutional questions involving electoral rights and democratic participation now raised, the Court’s final decision may have significant implications for the conduct of uncontested elections in India.
Click Here to Read More Reports on NOTA
