E-Paper
Top court seeks EC, Centre opinions on repoll possibility if NOTA wins
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde, sought a response from the two parties within four weeks on the PIL filed by Supreme Court advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Upadhyay.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a PIL seeking fresh elections if maximum votes were polled in favour of NOTA (None Of The Above) in a particular constituency.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde, sought a response from the two parties within four weeks on the PIL filed by Supreme Court advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Upadhyay.
Representing Upadhyay, senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy submitted before the bench that the petition sought formalization of the voters’ right to reject so that fresh polls could be conducted.
The bench, which also included justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was initially reluctant to admit the plea. “The problem is that if a political party with sufficient influence on voters (help to) get several candidates rejected, Parliament may not be constituted properly. If several candidates are rejected, those constituencies will go unrepresented. How will you form a proper Parliament then?” it asked. In her response, the senior counsel said that even the poll panel recommended fresh elections in constituencies where NOTA received maximum votes.
“The right to reject and elect a new candidate will give power to the people to express their discontent. If voters are dissatisfied with the background or performance of contesting candidate, they will opt for NOTA (none of the above) to reject such candidate and elect a new candidate,” it said.
Guruswamy added that the present situation was untenable since a candidate with just a single vote could still be declared elected even if 99 per cent of the votes were polled in favour of NOTA. NOTA had no real consequences on the results of an election, she said. “A right to reject will prompt political parties to be more careful in putting up candidates and only those with a clean record would be put up.” The bench said it found it “difficult to accept an underlying assumption” that the parties did not wish to field such candidates otherwise but agreed to examine the matter.
