What is the purpose of a NOTA vote when it does not impact the final outcome of the electoral process in our democracyIJ The Election Commission must not dilute the spirit of the apex court's ruling
The excitement that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement of September 23, 2013, created, on a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil liberties, was short-lived. The court directed the Election Commission of India to introduce a button providing for ‘none of the above’ option in the Electronic Voting Machines and also in the ballot papers in order for the voters to retain the secrecy of their ballot even in cases where they choose to exercise their vote for not favouring any of the contesting candidate.
The ‘right to not vote’ as a voting option, has existed for long under Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Elections Rules of India, 1961, which describes the procedure to be followed when a valid voter decides not to cast his vote and wants to record this fact. Rule 49-O ensures the correct accounting of the voters who have been entered in the register of voters with reference to votes cast. However, Rule 49-O fails the test of ensuring secrecy and the provision in the Electronic Voting Machine would ensure secrecy of ballot. Thus the Supreme Court ruling had observed that the voter loses the statutory right of secrecy of his/her ballot if he is required to inform the Presiding Officer at the election booth regarding his intent not to vote.
The apex court in the judgement has stated that the provision of NOTA on the EVM would impact the voter turnout, particularly in the urban constituencies. The court also conveyed a vision, “...in a vibrant democracy the voter must be given an opportunity to choose None of the Above button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate.”
The Election Commission of India has issued instructions to implement the NOTA option on EVMs/ballot papers. As per the instructions, the final result sheet shall mention the number of votes recorded against the None of the Above option for each Assembly segment. However, the following clarification takes away from the implicit expectation of Supreme Court:-
“It is clarified that NOTA has the same effect as not voting for any candidate under the earlier provisions of Rule 49-O. Therefore, even if, in any extreme case, the number of votes against NOTA is more than the number of votes secured by the candidates, the candidate who secures the largest number of votes among the contesting candidates shall be declared to be elected as per the provisions of Rule 64.”
What is the purpose of a NOTA vote when it does not impact the final outcome of the electoral process of our democracyIJ The instructions of the poll panel stop short of the most crucial last step for the validity of NOTA. It should be seen as voters' mandate of consensual verdict along with upholding the secrecy of the NOTA votes. The validity of NOTA should count at least in election results where it exceeds in number to the candidate having received the highest vote in any election. Then only any meaningful debate would ensue on the way forward from thereon.
The ‘None of the Above’ option creates the impression that the electorate has exercised a conscious choice to reject all candidates on the ground that they are unworthy. However, it must be recognised that the conscious exercise of NOTA in any election is a one-time vote cast and cannot influence the electoral process of a fresh election in any constituency.
Expanding on the verdict of the Supreme Court, our illustrious former Chief election Commissioners, Mr N Gopalaswami and Mr SY Quraishi have acknowledged that the right of secrecy of a voter has been reclaimed. However, Mr Quraishi has referred to administrative and financial reasons, including the need for political stability, for not taking NOTA to the natural corollary of the rejected votes being counted as valid votes and thus impacting the results. The apprehensions expressed regarding the impact of NOTA in case the rejected votes are counted, are misplaced. During the 2009 Parliament elections, there were approximately 71.69 crore voters, and the average voting was 58.19 per cent. It is unlikely that there could be any organised campaign in favour of NOTA at all the polling stations in any parliamentary constituency. Also, the considerations weighing on the mind of a voter are too complex for any en bloc uniform behaviour. Such an eventuality for fresh election is minimal given the size of the constituency and number of voters. However, if the majority opinion in any constituency is for a fresh poll by rejecting the contesting candidates, it should be respected. There is also no issue of disqualification of the contesting candidates as per the present law, if a fresh election is ordered. However, the political parties would definitely get the message of the electorate and may reconsider the choice of the candidate. But not to count NOTA for the purposes of electoral result would send a wrong message and negate the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling. This must be addressed at the earliest.
(The author is former Chairman, TRAI and Director, Public Interest Foundation. The article is co-authored by Tannu Singh)