The petitioner has argued that this law denies voters the right to choose the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option, which is important in a democracy.
NEW DELHI: Today, 24th April: The Supreme Court granted the Union government more time to file a separate counter-affidavit in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questions Section 53(2) of the Representation of People Act.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | If NOTA Gets Maximum Votes, Then What?: CJI Sends Notice to Poll Body
This section allows a candidate to be elected without any voting if no one else is contesting the seat. The petitioner has argued that this law denies voters the right to choose the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option, which is important in a democracy.
During the discussion, the Bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, said that this law could be misused in today’s political climate. The court noted that a rich or powerful candidate could influence or pressure others to withdraw, making them the only one left in the contest.
“In shifting political situations, it is possible for a wealthy candidate to pressure other candidates to withdraw from the race.”
In response, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the government, called this fear only theoretical. He said there are only a few such cases in reality.
“This is just a theoretical situation. There are only 9 cases where candidates were declared unopposed.”
However, Justice Surya Kant offered a different viewpoint. He suggested that even if a candidate is unopposed, they should be required to get a minimum number of votes—say 10% or 15% of the total votes—to be declared the winner.
“Wouldn’t it be a positive and forward-thinking move if, even when only one candidate remains in the race, they are still required to secure at least 10-15% of the votes?”
He emphasized how Indian democracy has stood strong through all challenges and deserves pride and respect.
“Our democracy has successfully handled every challenge, and all Indians should be proud of that. Why should we let someone enter Parliament if they don’t have the support of at least 5% of the people? This rule is just an option to consider. It could also encourage a multi-party system, which would make our democracy stronger and healthier.”
Mr. Dwivedi responded that based on India’s experience, the NOTA option hasn’t really worked in practice.
“Based on our experience, the idea of NOTA (None of the Above) has not worked.”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani agreed with this view and said that the court cannot cancel an existing law.
“I agree with Mr. Dwivedi. The court cannot cancel the law.”
Justice Surya Kant clarified that the court is not trying to strike down the law, but simply having a discussion on possible improvements.
“We’re just suggesting that you add something to it.”
“We are not asking for any court order today. We are discussing a possible situation that may or may not happen. However, as a strong democratic institution, you should have a rule in place to handle such situations if they arise. There could be a small group of experts to look into it. The main rule would stay the same, but we may add a condition that someone needs to secure 5%, 10%, or 15% support.”
The Attorney General responded that the issue involves more than just the government and should be discussed with all concerned parties. He also asked the court to postpone the hearing to another day.
“This issue will involve not just the government, but also other parties. Some discussions have already happened. Please schedule this for another day.”
ALSO READ: Justice BR Gavai Says: ‘Courts Cannot Sit with Folded Hands When Executive Fails’
Justice Kant then said the court is only thinking about adding a condition that may help improve the law and is waiting for the government’s formal reply.
“We are considering a provision that could impact the candidate as well. Let’s see what your response is in your reply.”
