Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday said some mechanism needs to be devised, not necessarily punitive, to make voting compulsory so that democracy gets stronger by attracting more eligible people to contest elections and render Nota option redundant. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the Nota option was devised to attract better candidates to the fray and to encourage voters to exercise their franchise. The decade-long experience shows that a minuscule percentage of voters exercised the option, the bench said.These observations came from the bench which was hearing a PIL by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy which argued for making Nota a candidate in the constituencies where only one candidate is in the fray to find out whether the lone contestant had the confidence of voters.Senior advocate Arvind Datar said that putting Nota on the ballot as a candidate would discourage the candidates with money and muscle power to make their opponents withdraw from the contest. The bench pointed out that to make Nota a candidate, Parliament would be required to carry out an amendment to the Representation of People Act. Attorney general R Venktaramani said when voting is not a fundamental right how could a PIL under Article 32, which is the recourse to approach SC directly in case of violation of fundamental rights, be maintainable.
It’s for Parl to decide if any amendment is needed: AG to SC
Senior advocate Arvind Datar said putting Nota on the ballot as a candidate would discourage the candidates with money and muscle power to make their opponents withdraw from the contest.Attorney general R Venktaramani said when voting is not a fundamental right how could a PIL under Article 32, which is the recourse to approach SC directly in case of violation of fundamental rights, be maintainable.“Let judiciary not decide what amendments are to be carried out in the RP Act. It is for Parliament to decide if any deficiency is required to be remedied or any amendment is to be carried out in a statute,” said the attorney general.The bench said it is the educated and well-off people who do not come out in large numbers to vote, which is in stark contrast to the people in rural areas where voting day resembles a festival that everyone celebrates by exercising their franchise.Govt in its affidavit had opposed the PIL and said, “Nota option is not a person which has been duly nominated at any election, hence cannot be held to be a candidate under Representation of People Act, 1951. ‘Nota’ ought not to be given an artificial personality. ‘Nota’ is merely an option or an expression and does not fit within definition of ‘candidate’.”
