Supreme Court to Address NOTA Option for Uncontested Elections on March 19

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing for March 19 to delve into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges a key provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This provision currently disallows the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) voting option in elections where there is only one candidate running unopposed.

The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, acknowledged the significance of the issue, stating, “It is a very pertinent issue, we would like to examine.” The court has also allowed the Central government time to prepare and submit its response to the PIL.

READ ALSO  SC Reserves Verdict in Cheating Case Against Badals over 2 SAD Constitutions, Says One Can Be Religious and Secular at Same Time

The legal challenge is spearheaded by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a prominent legal think tank, which has questioned the constitutionality of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act. This section mandates that if the number of candidates equals the number of seats available, the election officer must immediately declare such candidates as elected without a contest.

Video thumbnail

Further complicating this issue are Rule 11 and Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which the PIL also seeks to have invalidated. These rules govern the publication of the list of contesting candidates and the declaration of results in uncontested elections.

The PIL argues that the current legislation effectively strips voters of the ability to express dissent through a NOTA vote in direct elections when faced with a single candidate scenario. Since the introduction of the NOTA option, over 82 lakh voters have been unable to exercise this choice in such uncontested direct elections to the house of the people.

READ ALSO  AIBA Calls Kapil Sibal's Comment on the Supreme Court "Contemptuous"

The think tank asserts that this prohibition on the NOTA option in uncontested elections is unconstitutional, violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The PIL references prior Supreme Court judgments that affirm the NOTA button on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) as an extension of this fundamental right in direct elections.

READ ALSO  Section 311 Empowers Trial Court To Summon Witnesses In Order To Arrive At A Just Decision, Rules Supreme Court
Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles