Opinion Editorial

Published: September 28, 2013 00:28 IST | Updated: September 28, 2013 00:28 IST

Yes to the no-vote option

By ordering that voting machines in future should have an additional provision for voters to record a none-of-theabove (NOTA) option to reject all candidates in the fray, the Supreme Court has ushered in a key electoral reform
that has found favour in the past with the Election Commission of India and even the Law Commission. The idea of
according to a negative vote the same sanctity and secrecy as a vote in favour of a particular candidate is indeed
laudable in a parliamentary democracy. Advocates of electoral reforms have encouraged voters to make greater use of
Rule 49-O, the provision by which one can record a no-vote option by signing a form in the presence of election
officials, in the hope that a large number of such negative votes would induce political parties to field candidates
known for their integrity. The verdict holds that the rule violates election law and the voters freedom of expression
alike by denying voters who exercise that choice the required secrecy. The Court believes that the extra provision in
the voting machines would promote free and fair elections, ensure greater voter participation and reduce bogus
voting.
In recent times, the Supreme Court has struck down a provision to prevent immediate disqualification of convicted
legislators and, more controversially, barred those in custody from contesting elections. The NOTA ruling fills a
significant lacuna in electoral law, and is a welcome addition to the series of decisions it has rendered to protect the
integrity of our elections. A doubt arises as to what will happen if a very large percentage of voters go in for the novote option. Even a meagre turnout is considered good enough to declare a valid result now, but a heavy quantum of
negative votes may affect the legitimacy of the election process. Perhaps, the EC could fix a limit beyond which the
percentage of NOTA votes would entail re-polling. All this raises a question: why has Parliament left electoral reforms
to the courts instead of deliberating over and passing appropriate laws? Thanks to an assertive EC, the potential for
irregularities by the political class has been effectively kept under check, but this inherently adversarial relationship
may have prevented the ushering in of sweeping reforms through legislation. There is no agreement on some reforms
mooted by the Election Commission, such as making the framing of charges in serious criminal cases the basis for
disqualification instead of conviction. Ranging from the need to check money power and paid news to the need for
transparency in the funding of political parties, there are a host of issues that ought to be addressed through
comprehensive legislation rather than ad hoc adjudication.
Keywords: Election Commission, NOTA, no-vote option, Supreme Court, electoral reforms
Printable version | Sep 30, 2013 11:28:28 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/yes-to-the-novoteoption/article5176567.ece
The Hindu