The Supreme Court on September 27, 2013 held that voters have a right to reject all candidates
contesting polls in a constituency by pressing a button for negative
vote, saying this would compel political parties to field “sound”
candidates who are known for their integrity.
‘None of the Above’ option in EVMs will force parties to field candidates known for integrity, says Bench
With a view to bringing about purity in elections, the Supreme Court on
Friday held that a voter could exercise the option of negative voting
and reject all candidates as unworthy of being elected. The voter could
press the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) button in the electronic voting
machine.
The court directed the Election Commission to provide the NOTA button in the EVM.
“For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men
should be chosen … 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 the NOTA option would indeed compel
political parties to nominate sound candidates, said a Bench of Chief
Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, while
allowing a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.
Writing the judgment, the CJI said: “Giving right to a voter not to vote
for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely
important in a democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to
express his disapproval of the kind of candidates being put up by the
parties. Gradually, there will be a systemic change and the parties will
be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are
known for their integrity.”
The Bench said the NOTA option “will accelerate effective political
participation in the present state of the democratic system and the
voters will in fact be empowered.” The right to cast a negative vote,
“at a time when electioneering is in full swing, will foster the purity
of the electoral process and also fulfil one of its objectives, namely,
wide participation of people.”
Not allowing a person to cast a negative vote would defeat the very freedom of expression and the right to liberty, it said.
The Bench held that Election Conduct Rules 41(2) and (3) and 49-O of the Rules were ultra vires
Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act and Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of
voting.
