The government refrained from reacting to the Supreme Court verdict on the right to exercise “none of the above option”, saying that the judgment will have to be studied before any comments can be made on it. Sources in the law ministry said that the verdict will be examined.
If implemented, the provision of “none of the above” (NOTA) may not have highly significant implications on the electoral process. As per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the candidate who gets the maximum number of votes wins the election. Experts, however, say that if the SC verdict is implemented then the RP Act will have to be amended in order to deal with the situation in which maximum number of votes cast are negative. The 51-page verdict does not throw light on what will be done in case the votes cast under the “NOTA” option outnumber the votes given to the candidates.
“The mechanism of negative voting... Serves a very fundamental and essential part of a vibrant democracy,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam.
“For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on a positive vote. Thus in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate,” the bench ruled while deciding a plea filed in 2004 by NGO People’s Union for Civil Liberties.
The bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said just as secrecy is maintained in terms of which voter has cast his vote for which candidate, it is essential under Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution that secrecy also be maintained in case of those voters who decide not to vote for any of the candidates.
“We hold Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the (Conduct of Election) Rules are ultra vires Section 128 of RP Act and Article 19(1)(a),” it said.