In a pivotal session on Thursday, the Supreme Court urged the central government to consider integrating provisions that would require unopposed election candidates to obtain a minimum percentage of votes to be declared winners. This suggestion came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the existing Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, which currently allows unopposed candidates to win without contest.
The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, highlighted the need for this change against a backdrop of rare but possible scenarios where candidates might manipulate the electoral process to ensure minimal opposition. The court reviewed submissions from the Election Commission, which noted that such instances of unopposed victories were exceedingly rare in Parliamentary elections, citing only nine occurrences.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, argued that the phenomenon was more prevalent in assembly elections. He presented various hypothetical scenarios where a candidate might use influence or coercion to dissuade others from contesting.
In response to these concerns, Justice Kant emphasized the importance of voter choice in elections, stating, “Voters will never get a chance to elect if the election commission has to declare the candidate elected unopposed under the current system.” He suggested that introducing a mechanism to require a minimum vote threshold would serve as a safeguard against potential manipulations, ensuring a fair choice for the electorate.
The bench pointed out that such a provision would enhance the democratic process by promoting a multi-party system and reinforcing the health of India’s democracy. However, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the poll panel, expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such changes, mentioning that similar initiatives like the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option had not significantly impacted electoral outcomes.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, maintained that while the court could assess the desirability of new measures, it was not within its purview to invalidate existing laws.
