In the heart of New Delhi, the Supreme Court, on the day named Friday, has initiated a notice regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This petition calls upon the Election Commission of India to devise regulations stipulating that if the NOTA option garners a majority, the electoral proceedings within that specific constituency should be deemed null and void. Consequently, a fresh electoral process must ensue within said constituency.
The esteemed petitioner, a prolific author hailing from the bustling metropolis of Delhi, Shiv Khera, was represented by the venerable Senior Counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan. This representation unfolded before a trinity of justices presided over by none other than the esteemed Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud.
The counsel, in their submission before the august court, brought forth an instance from Surat, highlighting the singular candidate scenario where all votes were inevitably cast in favor of the solitary contender. Acknowledging the gravity of the matter, the Chief Justice expressed the court’s intent to issue the requisite notice, recognizing the profound implications this holds for the electoral machinery.
The bench, comprised also of justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, articulated a stance of prudent deliberation, asserting, “Let us ascertain the stance of the election commission on this matter.” The plea sets forth a directive for the Election Commission of India to draft regulations mandating that candidates receiving fewer votes than the NOTA option be debarred from contesting any elections for a duration spanning 5 years. Additionally, it seeks to ensure the comprehensive dissemination and portrayal of NOTA as a ‘fictitious candidate.’
Emphasizing the pivotal role NOTA plays within the democratic framework, the plea underscores the failure of the Election Commission of India to accord due recognition to NOTA’s legitimacy. It argues that NOTA transcends the mere act of abstaining from voting, instead constituting a valid expression of choice.
The plea highlights a significant shift observed in the electoral landscape of Maharashtra, Haryana, Delhi, and Puducherry, where the State Election Commissions have mandated a compulsory re-poll should NOTA emerge victorious.
“This represents a seminal departure from established electoral norms since the inception of NOTA,” asserted the plea. It further elucidated that designating the runner-up as the victor in instances where NOTA prevails undermines the foundational ethos and objectives of NOTA.
The plea expounds on the apex court’s expectation that NOTA would invigorate voter engagement, a feat yet to be fully realized. It contends that the Election Commission, both at the state and central levels, must fortify NOTA’s efficacy akin to the measures adopted in Maharashtra, Delhi, Puducherry, and Haryana.
“The directives issued by the State Election Commissions underscore the Election Commission of India’s detachment from the electorate’s mandate,” it avers. Thus, it applauds the State Election Commissions for their proactive measures aimed at rectifying inherent anomalies.
NOTA, as envisioned, serves as a potent tool compelling political entities to field more deserving candidates. It provides recourse for voters faced with a plethora of candidates tainted by pending criminal charges, thus empowering them with a meaningful choice.