Amid the ongoing general elections, a significant development unfolded as the Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a PIL seeking the framing of rules to nullify an election and order a fresh one if the NOTA (none of the above) option garners a majority over other candidates.
The apex court issued a notice to the poll panel on the PIL filed by author, activist, and motivational speaker Shiv Khera.
NOTA Option
The NOTA option is provided to voters in elections in accordance with the 2013 apex court verdict.
In its 2013 judgment, the top court emphasized that “the provision of negative voting would promote democracy as it would convey clear signals to political parties and their candidates about the electorate’s opinion of them” and directed the Election Commission to incorporate the NOTA option in all EVMs.
The Bench
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra acknowledged the arguments presented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Khera, and issued the notice.
Initially hesitant to consider the PIL, the bench remarked that it was within the purview of the “executive to decide”.
“We will issue a notice. This concerns the electoral process as well. Let us hear the Election Commission’s response…,” stated the CJI.
The senior advocate stressed the significance of the present plea, particularly in light of the developments in Surat, Gujarat, where a BJP candidate was declared the winner even before polling due to the rejection of certain nomination papers and withdrawals from the race.
“It is respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly issue a writ… directing the Election Commission to establish rules stipulating that if NOTA secures a majority, the election in the particular constituency shall be deemed null and void, and a fresh election shall be conducted in the constituency,” the plea stated.
The PIL also requested a directive to the poll panel to establish rules stating that candidates who receive fewer votes than NOTA should be disqualified from contesting all elections for a period of five years.
Additionally, it sought a directive to ensure “proper and efficient reporting/publicity of NOTA as a ‘fictional candidate'”.
The plea cited the apex court’s judgment and the Law Commission’s report in support of its arguments.
Reinforcing the plea for re-election if NOTA emerges victorious and disqualifying candidates who receive fewer votes than NOTA, the PIL stated, “Since 2013, the implementation of NOTA has not achieved its intended purpose.”
On the contrary, it asserted that NOTA has not led to increased voter participation and has failed to compel political parties to nominate better candidates.
