The Supreme Court has questioned the absence of the NOTA option in uncontested elections, calling it an issue “worth examining,” while the Centre dismissed it as an “academic” matter. The case stems from a PIL challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
New Delhi: On August 6, the Supreme Court and the Union government found themselves in disagreement over whether courts should look into the issue of “unopposed” legislators — those who get elected to Parliament or state assemblies without any contest.
The Supreme Court said this was an “interesting question worth examining,” while the Centre dismissed it as an “academic” matter that courts should not interfere in.
The “none of the above” (NOTA) option is available to voters who do not want to support any of the candidates. The Supreme Court bench, also comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, pointed out,
“The election of unopposed candidate is not in the hands of the people. So, they may want to go and vote for NOTA as well. This is an issue which will require some examination.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union government, told the court that the Centre had already considered the matter and found it unnecessary for judicial interference.
He said,
“After 1991, there is hardly any instance of candidates getting elected unopposed. Why should the court go into such an academic question?”
Under Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if there is only one candidate in the fray, that person is directly elected without a vote.
The case came before the court through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which argued that allowing candidates to win unopposed may take away the voters’ right to choose their representative or even use the NOTA option provided by the court.
The petitioner disputed the Centre’s stand, calling it wrong to label the issue as “academic.” They presented data showing 26 instances of unopposed or uncontested candidates making it to Parliament since 1952.
Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, also representing the Centre, argued that if the logic was accepted that NOTA votes could be used against the only candidate, then elections would have to be cancelled and held again.
He said,
“If fresh elections are to be held, same situation will again arise. There will be no end.”
The bench, however, responded,
“That situation won’t arise as by the next election, all political parties will set up candidates.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had asked the Election Commission (EC) for its opinion. The EC had informed the court that since 2013, when the Supreme Court ordered the NOTA option to be added to electronic voting machines, no election had been decided with a majority of NOTA votes.
It also said that since the implementation of the 1951 Act, there had been only nine such instances of unopposed candidates.
The petitioner insisted that the matter should be resolved for future elections so that voters are not deprived of their right to choose their representative due to Section 53(2) of the 1951 Act.
In April, the court had remarked that any elected candidate should have a minimum threshold of votes from their constituency — possibly between 5% and 15% of the total votes.
At that time, the court said,
“We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised. Keeping the growing trend and dimensions in the political field, there is a possibility of some affluent candidate getting elected unopposed when those who are contesting withdraw. Voters may suddenly realise they have no choice, and they cannot oppose as he will be elected. In such a situation, both EC and the voters are helpless.”
Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay also raised a hypothetical concern: What if NOTA receives more votes than the sole candidate? And what if the same happens in a re-election?
ALSO READ: BREAKING | If NOTA Gets Maximum Votes, Then What?: CJI Sends Notice to Poll Body
In its affidavit, the EC emphasized how infrequently such situations arise. It informed the court that only nine uncontested elections have occurred in Lok Sabha history since 1951, with just one instance since 1991.
Given this rarity, the Commission argued, any move to give NOTA legal effect in uncontested polls would require legislative amendments to the Representation of the People Act and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
CASE TITLE:
VIDHI CENTRE FOR LEGAL POLICY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. W.P.(C) No. 677/2024
Click Here to Read More On NOTA
