Context: The None Of The Above (NOTA) option is in news recently because Indore constituency registered the highest number of NOTA votes in the recently held General Elections.
About NOTA:
- NOTA is a voting option that allows voters to formally express their rejection of all the running candidates, Selecting NOTA as a voting option signifies that the voter has not selected any party or candidate to support.
- NOTA vote is a neutral vote that is eventually discounted towards the final total, it is distinct from a negative vote which has no arithmetic value.
- The NOTA option was introduced for the first time in the General Elections of 2014.
- Presently, NOTA has no legal consequence attached to it. Even if the highest number of votes in a seat are polled for NOTA, the contestant with second highest number of votes wins.
Background:
- UDHR: The Right to secrecy is integral part of voting and free elections under Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25(b) of the ICCPR.
- Section 79(d) in The Representation of the People Act, 1951: It states that “Electoral right” means the right of a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate, or to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
- Law commission of India: Law Commission in its 170th Report in 1999 had explored the concept of negative voting along with a 50%+1 voting system, but practical challenges led to no final outcome in this regard.
- Election Commission of India (ECI): ECI supported NOTA in 2001 and 2004 as a response to concerns about voter secrecy due to EVMs. They proposed adding "NOTA" as an option to address the secrecy issues.
Landmark Cases:
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India: SC held that the right to vote and the right not to vote are statutorily recognized, Court also held that secrecy had to be maintained regardless of whether voters decide to cast or not cast their votes.
- Ballot Box system: Citizens who chose not to cast a ballot when using ballot papers did so by filling in blank ballot papers, which protected both their right to vote and the election's confidentiality. However, because of how they operate, the EVMs did not provide the voters this option. The Election Commission of India petitioned the Supreme Court in 2009 to allow voters to select "NOTA," but the Government opposed the notion.
- People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013): In 2004, the People's Union for Civil Liberties filed a PIL. The Supreme Court mandated the provision of a "None of the Above" (NOTA) button on EVMs to allow voters to express dissatisfaction with contesting candidates while maintaining secrecy.
- SC also held that maintaining vote confidentiality is vital for “free and fair elections”.
- It is in concurrence with the Fundamental Right to freedom of Speech and Expression Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
- This decision enhanced democracy by empowering voters and promoting fair elections. ECI was directed to implement this provision, alongside conducting awareness programs.
Arguments in Favour of NOTA:
- Expression of Discontent:
- Voter Autonomy: NOTA allows voters to express their dissatisfaction with the candidates without abstaining from the voting process entirely.
- Signal to Political Parties: A significant number of NOTA votes can signal to political parties that the electorate is unhappy with the choices presented, encouraging better candidate selection.
- Promotes Democratic Values:
- Right to Reject: NOTA embodies the democratic principle of choice, ensuring that voters can actively reject all candidates if they feel none are suitable.
- Increases Voter Turnout: By providing an option for those dissatisfied with the candidates, NOTA can encourage more people to participate in elections.
- Morally sound candidate: Discourage the parties from fielding tainted candidates and nominate a morally sound candidate.
- Political Accountability:
- Encourages Better Governance: Knowing that voters have a formal way to reject candidates can push political parties to nominate more qualified and honest candidates.
- Deters Malpractice: The potential for a high number of NOTA votes can discourage unethical practices like vote-buying and pandering.
- Ethical Voting:
- Avoids Compromised Choices: Voters do not have to choose the lesser of two evils and can maintain their ethical standards by selecting NOTA.
Arguments Against NOTA:
- Ineffectiveness in Changing Outcomes:
- No Real Impact: In many electoral systems, NOTA votes do not affect the outcome of the election. Even if NOTA receives the highest number of votes, the candidate with the most votes after NOTA still wins, that’s why it is termed as “toothless tiger”.
- Symbolic Gesture: Critics argue that NOTA is merely symbolic and does not lead to any substantial political change or reform.
- Potential for Misuse:
- Protest Votes: Voters might use NOTA as a form of protest without fully considering the implications, potentially undermining serious candidates, and the democratic process. Data also showed that non-urban areas and the SC and ST reserved constituencies have consistently been reporting higher NOTA vote share since the introduction of the option in 2013.
- Strategic Voting Issues: In highly polarized elections, NOTA can split the vote, potentially affecting the results in unintended ways.
- Lack of Constructive Alternatives:
- No Follow-up Mechanism: Simply rejecting all candidates does not provide a clear path for what happens next. No mechanism to address the issues that led to the rejection of all candidates.
- Does Not Address Root Causes: NOTA does not solve the underlying problems of poor candidate selection, corruption, or lack of viable choices; it only highlights these issues.
- Potential to Undermine the Electoral Process:
- Voter Disengagement: Frequent high NOTA votes can lead to a perception of perpetual dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the democratic process.
- Election Delays and Costs: If NOTA were to trigger re-elections, it could lead to delays in governance and increased electoral costs, straining public resources.
Way forward:
- Reelection: An election can be declared as "null and void" if maximum votes or more than 50% votes from the constituency are polled for "None of The Above" (NOTA) and a fresh election should be held for the constituency. A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court in this context.
- Candidates who have lost against NOTA may be barred from contesting again in the same election.
- Candidate review mechanism: Political parties can also implement a lower threshold for NOTA votes (e.g., 30%), which could require a review of the candidate selection process or other corrective measures without necessarily triggering re-elections.