Supreme Court proposes minimum vote requirement for unoppose
Supreme Court proposes minimum vote requirement for unopposed candidates
The Supreme Court asked the Union government to explore the possibility of introducing a provision that would require unopposed candidates in elections to secure a minimum percentage of votes
DIMAPUR — The Supreme Court on Thursday asked
the Union government to explore the possibility of introducing a provision that
would require unopposed candidates in elections to secure a minimum percentage
of votes before being declared the winner.
This suggestion aims to address concerns about voter
disenfranchisement and potential manipulation in uncontested elections,
according to a LiveLaw report.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh
was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Section 53(2) of the
Representation of the People Act (RP Act), which allows for direct election of
candidates in uncontested elections.
The petitioner argued that this section deprives voters of
their right to choose ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA). During the hearing, Senior
Advocate Arvind P Datar, representing the petitioner, argued that while the
Election Commission cited only a handful of instances of uncontested wins at
the parliamentary level, the practice was more prevalent in state assemblies.
He presented a hypothetical scenario where candidates might
be coerced into withdrawing their nominations, leaving an undesirable candidate
as the only option for voters. He highlighted that even if a small fraction of
voters supported the remaining candidate, the option to vote NOTA would be
rendered meaningless.
Justice Kant echoed these concerns, suggesting a possible
mechanism where even an unopposed candidate would need to secure a minimum
percentage of the vote to be declared the winner. He acknowledged the potential
for affluent candidates to exert pressure on opponents to withdraw, thereby
limiting voter choice.
He stated that implementing such a system would be a
"helpful and progressive step" and would empower voters even in situations
where only one candidate remains in the fray.
"Suppose you address this issue... it will be a very
good reform," Justice Kant said. "It's only a question of creating a
mechanism which may or may not be utilised ever...keeping the given trend of
the changing dimensions in the political field, there is a possibility of some
affluent candidate...maybe they pressurise, they may influence, they may
persuade...others, those who have filed nominations, withdrew at the last
moment, and only one candidate remains."
Highlighting that the Indian democratic system has addressed
every challenge in the past, Justice Kant remarked, "Why should we allow
someone to enter Parliament in default who is unable to get even 5% of the
votes? It is only an enabling provision you can think of.”
The judge further expressed that implementing such a
provision would equip the Election Commission with the necessary tools to
address potential issues in future elections. He also said that the proposed
provision would promote multiple-party culture and strengthen a "healthy
democracy.”
However, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the
ECI, voiced concerns about the effectiveness of the NOTA option, stating,
"According to our experience, NOTA is a failed idea. It is creating no impact
on the elections."
Attorney General R Venkataramani echoed Dwivedi's sentiment,
cautioning the court against overturning a law based solely on desirability.
"If something is desirable, the Court may look into the point of
desirability, but it must not strike down a law for that reason," he
submitted.
Justice Kant clarified that the court wasn't considering
striking down any existing law. Instead, he proposed the formation of a small
expert body to consider adding provisions to the current legislation. "We
are only impressing upon you to add something in the existing [law]," he
stated.
