The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea challenging the validity of uncontested elections, where only one candidate stands for election. The plea, filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a prominent legal think tank, questions the provisions that allow such elections under current laws, emphasizing potential infringements on voters’ rights.
Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan have also enlisted the aid of Attorney General R. Venkataramani to delve deeper into the legal complexities of the issue, highlighting its significance. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Harsh Parashar represented the petitioner in court.
Central to the challenge is Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and related rules which facilitate the election of a lone candidate “unopposed.” The petitioner argues that these provisions deny voters the opportunity to use the None of the Above (NOTA) option, which was upheld as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in the landmark 2013 judgement of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India.
The petition criticizes the existing framework for creating an unfair disparity between voters in single-candidate constituencies and those with multiple candidates. It argues that the original intention behind these rules—to save on election expenses—is outdated given India’s economic progress.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy points out that while uncontested elections are becoming less common in elections to the House of the People, they persist in State Legislative Assemblies at a concerning rate. The think tank also highlights issues of transparency, noting that voter turnout data is not recorded in uncontested constituencies, which obscures electoral records and undermines the democratic process.
