The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the practical impact of the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option in elections, observing that it cannot fill a seat and asking whether it has improved the quality of elected representatives. The Court was hearing a PIL challenging the validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides for declaration of candidates as elected in uncontested polls without voting.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a plea seeking that NOTA be made available even in elections where only one candidate is contesting.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked, “Has the quality of the leaders elected improved with NOTA,” and noted that NOTA “cannot become an entity because it cannot fill up a seat despite getting the maximum number of votes.”
The Bench also observed that there should be an endeavour to make voting compulsory so that better candidates are elected. It expressed concern over a trend where educated and well-off voters participate less in elections compared to women and less-educated voters.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 17.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani opposed the plea, submitting that the challenge was based on hypothetical premises and stating, “Law cannot be tested like this. The right to vote is a constitutional right.”
The PIL has been filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The provision states that where the number of contesting candidates equals the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall declare them elected without conducting a poll.
The petition also seeks striking down Rule 11 read with Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which deal with publication of the list of contesting candidates and declaration of results in uncontested elections.
According to the petitioner, the impugned provision prevents voters from exercising the NOTA option in direct elections where only one candidate is in the fray, thereby denying them the opportunity to cast a “negative vote.”
The plea contends that since 1952, over 82 lakh voters have been deprived of exercising their franchise in Lok Sabha elections due to uncontested polls.
The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which directed the Election Commission to provide a NOTA option on electronic voting machines and recognised the right to cast a negative vote as part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
It also refers to a subsequent ruling clarifying that the right to NOTA applies only to direct constituency-based elections and not to indirect elections based on proportional representation.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that Section 53(2) is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents voters from exercising the NOTA option in uncontested direct elections and prayed that the provision be read down or struck down to ensure conformity with constitutional guarantees.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on October 21, 2024, issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on the plea and agreed to examine the issue.
