Why in news?
The Supreme Court recently suggested that if there is only one candidate in an election, they should be required to secure a minimum prescribed vote share to be declared elected, rather than winning automatically without a poll.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which challenged the constitutionality of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section currently allows a sole candidate to be declared elected without an election.
What’s in Today’s Article?
- Background - Petition and Argument
- Uncontested Elections in Lok Sabha
- Response of the Election Commission of India (ECI)
- View of the Supreme Court
Background - Petition and Argument
- The petition was filed in August 2024.
- It argues that if an election is not held when there is only one candidate, voters lose the chance to choose the "None of the Above" (NOTA) option.
- This, the petition says, violates the fundamental rights of voters.
- Reference to Supreme Court Judgment
- The petition cites the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India.
- In this judgment, the Court recognized the right to cast a negative vote (NOTA) as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Core Argument
- It argues that the right to express disapproval through NOTA should be available regardless of the number of candidates contesting the election.
Uncontested Elections in Lok Sabha
- The petition states that between 1951 and 2024, candidates were elected uncontested in 26 Lok Sabha constituencies, based on Election Commission of India reports.
- As a result, over 82 lakh voters were deprived of their right to vote.
- Breakup of Uncontested Elections
- According to the petition, uncontested elections occurred as follows: seven in 1957, five each in 1951 and 1967, three in 1962, two in 1977, and one each in 1971, 1980, 1989, and 2024.
- Recent Example
- In 2024, BJP candidate was declared elected unopposed from Surat after all other candidates withdrew or had their nominations rejected.
- Uncontested Elections in State Assemblies
- The petition also points out that uncontested elections are more frequent in state Assembly elections.
Response of the Election Commission of India (ECI)
- The ECI, in its counter affidavit, noted that uncontested elections occurred in only nine out of 20 Lok Sabha elections held between 1951 and 2024.
- Since 1989, only one MP has been elected uncontested, highlighting that such instances have become extremely rare with the growth of political participation and voter awareness.
- Argument Against the Petition
- The Commission argued that with democracy evolving and more parties contesting, the likelihood of uncontested elections is now minimal.
- Therefore, the Supreme Court should not entertain the petition.
- Position on NOTA
- The ECI emphasized that the "None of the Above" (NOTA) option is available only when polling takes place.
- NOTA is not to be treated as a competing candidate in uncontested elections.
- Need for Legislative Change
- The Commission stated that recognizing NOTA as a mandatory contesting option would require amendments to the RPA, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, as the current law does not provide for this.
View of the Supreme Court
- Suggestion for Minimum Vote Requirement
- SC suggested that when only one candidate remains, they should be required to secure a minimum percentage of votes — such as 10% or 15% — to be declared elected, rather than winning automatically.
- Democracy and Majority Principle
- It emphasized that democracy is founded on majority support, and even in uncontested situations, a candidate should have at least some voters’ approval to uphold democratic principles.
- Advice to the Government
- SC urged the government to consider introducing a provision to address such scenarios in the future, stressing that Parliament could decide the specifics.
- It questioned the idea of allowing someone to enter Parliament "by default" without even minimal voter support.
