'NOTA' option will ensure candidates are chosen with caution

The verdict of the Supreme Court directing provisioning of none of the above (NOTA) option for voters would have no material impact on individuals contesting elections or the final mandate.

The new option in the electronic voting machine would surely reflect upon the way people think about the choice of candidates by political parties. But to think that it is a panacea for all the ills afflicting the elections in India would be wrong. It is a small step, a right one probably. Even though, it would not provide any instant result, it is certain to have desired effect in the longer run.

There is a genuine apprehension among sections of people that political parties are likely to find a loophole to outwit the spirit of the verdict. Some say that it is not a revolutionary step but an evolutionary one towards strengthening democracy.

The judgment would provide sound basis for the next major step—the right to recall. If NOTA got more votes than the winning candidate, it would force the political system to carefully think over the selection of candidates. Victorious candidate would be under an obligation to perform in order to turn those negative votes into a positive mandate in future at least. No doubt, there have been long pending demands to curb the use of money power as an immediate measure during elections, but that measure has to wait.
 Still, NOTA could prove to be a weapon in the hands of voters. It is expected to reduce winning margin and act as a speed-breaker in the path of unscrupulous candidates, who tend to ride rough shod over the voters after winning. Some observers say that it would motivate more voters to come to polling booths to cast their votes.

Many a rot afflicting the existing system could not be removed with one stroke. But the verdict could turn out to be an important one to stir political parties out of their slumber to think over the impending implications.The need for having such an option arose as voters who decided not to cast their votes in favour of any of the contesting candidates had to fill a form under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, revealing their identity and thus violating the secrecy clause. It was mandatory under the Representation of the People Act to maintain secrecy in order to ensure free and fair elections.

In the rules, it was accepted that a voter has a right not to cast his vote but secrecy was not maintained in the process. It was contended that since the right not to vote was recognized under the rules and was also a part of the freedom of expression of a voter, if a voter chose to exercise the said right, it had to be kept secret.

Right to vote

In its argument, the Union government maintained that the right of secrecy has been extended to only those voters who have exercised their right to vote. This right can in no manner be granted to those who have not voted at all, it said. It was also argued that the right to vote was neither a fundamental right nor a Constitutional right, but merely a statutory right.

The Election Commission, on its part, said that since secrecy was an essential feature of the free and fair elections the existing rules violated the requirement to maintain secrecy. Notably, the Representation of People Act explained that it was the electoral right of a person to vote or refrain from voting at an election. Dealing with the matter, the apex court referred to a catena of cases to agree with the contention that the right to vote was neither a fundamental right nor a Constitutional right but a pure and simple statutory right.

It agreed that the secrecy of casting vote was duly recognised and was necessary for strengthening democracy. It further said that maintenance of secrecy was a must and was insisted upon all over the world in democracies where direct elections were involved to ensure that a voter cast his vote without any fear of being victimised in case his vote was disclosed. The court declared that since ‘right to vote’ as well as ‘right not to vote’ have been statutorily recognized, so the rules which treated a voter, who decided not to cast his vote differently and allowed the secrecy to be violated, was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the Constitution.

No discernible public interest would be served by disclosing the elector’s vote or his identity, the court pointed out. A positive ‘right not to vote’ is a part of  expression of a voter in a parliamentary democracy and it has to be recognised and given effect to in the same manner as ‘right to vote’. It was described as the basic requirement in order to sustain healthy democracy. So, the court called upon the Election Commission to provide a button as none-of-the-above in the EVMs to exercise that right.

Since introduction of a NOTA button was expected to increase the participation of democracy, nothing should stop it, the court said. The court was concerned that the non-participation caused frustration and disinterest, which was not a healthy sign of a growing democracy like India.

In some circles, the apex court’s verdict was dubbed as granting the voters a right to negative voting but in reality it is simply a small step towards empowering the electorate. It is to be seen how far it could achieve its intended objective and impel political parties to put up better candidates in the fray.