Supreme Court’s Judgement for “None of the Above” Option on EVM – Clarification.
The direction in the judgment dated 27th September, 2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to provide a NOTA option on the EVM and ballot papers so that the electors who do not want to vote for any of the candidates can exercise their option in secrecy. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Rule 49-O under which an elector not wishing to vote for any candidate had to inform the Presiding Officer about his decision, are ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution and Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. As per the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 64 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, read with Section 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the candidate who has polled the largest number of valid votes is to be declared elected by the Returning Officer. Therefore, even if the number of electors opting for NOTA option is more than the number of votes polled by any of the candidates, the candidate who secures the largest number of votes has to be declared elected.
Under the provisions of Section 53(2) of RP Act, 51, if the number of contesting candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer has to declare all the contesting candidates to be duly elected. In the case of elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies, in cases where there is only one contesting candidate in the fray, the Returning Officer has to, in accordance with the provisions of the said Section 53(2), declare the sole contesting candidates as elected. The provision of NOTA option which is an expression of decision not to vote for the contesting candidates is not relevant in such cases.
Election Commission of India
New Delhi, 28 October, 2013
if No. of NATO is more than any any Condidates Number than all the Contesting condidate should be baned and they will not be abled to contest further.
DOES IT MEAN THAT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT HAS NO EFFECT? UNDESIRABLE CANDIDATE WILL STILL GET ELECTED
If that is the interpretation of ‘NOTA’, then doesn’t this ‘newly interpreted provision (of NOTA) becomes irrelevant ab initio, as it makes no difference to the poll out come, except for preserving the ‘identity’ and upholding the privacy of the individual. That could not have been the intent. Ideally, harmonising both provisional (ie NOTA and the Sec 53 (2) of RPA), without making any of the two infrastructuous, it would be better, in the situation when ‘NOTA’ outstrips all other candidates and emerges notional ‘winner’, to read the verdict so as to go in for re-poll; rather than choosing the ‘Second Best Candidate’.