THE ‘NOTA’ OPTION: CAN IT CLEAN THE POLITICS?

• Supreme Court Judgment (Free Available)

• Causes and Effects (Only for Online Coaching Members and Premium Members)

• Cleaner Politics? (Only for Online Coaching Members and Premium Members)

• Views on Outcome (Only for Online Coaching Members and Premium Members)

• Behind Criminalisation (Only for Online Coaching Members and Premium Members)

It is unlikely that providing Indian voters with a “no vote” option will either improve voter participation or contribute to a decriminalisation of politics. Voter turnout is not an issue in the country, since over the long term it has been showing an upward trend. Criminalisation is the result of social and economic factors, and the nomination of candidates with a criminal background may not change merely by giving voters the option of saying “no”. In countries with a no vote option, such votes add up to an insignificantcant number.

Campaigns to “cleanse” the political system have gained considerable ground in the last few years in urban India. These have strengthened with the nearing of assembly elections in Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh as also the general elections scheduled for 2014. Coupled with this are attempts, both institutional and movement-driven, to make democracy in India more participatory.

It may be useful to start with a brief look at the legal history of the various moves towards this cleansing of the electoral system. In July this year the Supreme Court ruled that parliamentarians and state legislators who were convicted of serious crimes, meaning carrying a jail term of two years or more, would be barred from contesting elections. The Court struck down Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act which allowed convicted members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies to continue in office while their appeals journeyed through courts often for indefinite periods. The government, backed by support from almost all political parties, had introduced a bill in Parliament to override this Supreme Court judgment and then passed the illfated ordinance which now stands withdrawn.

Supreme Court Judgment

In September, close on the heels of the contentious ordinance, came another judgment from the Supreme Court. On a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) a few years back, it ruled that voters should have the option to reject all the candidates who were standing for election in their constituency. It directed the Election Commission (EC) of India to include the option “None of the Above” (now popularly called NOTA) in the electronic voting machines (EVMs).

The Supreme Court felt that this would contribute to cleansing politics – that the political leadership would formally know that there are people unhappy with the parties’ choice of candidates. The logic is that this would build moral pressure on political parties and possibly bring about a rethink on their choice of candidates, making them hesitant to put up candidates with criminal records. According to the Court, exercising the option of rejecting all candidates would lead to a “systemic change” in the whole electoral process.

The Supreme Court stated that besides cleaning up politics, the option of negative vote would foster greater participation among voters as this would draw to the polling booths those who otherwise do not vote because they are not satisfied with the candidates contesting elections. The right to a negative vote would encourage them to visit the polling stations and express their unhappiness by exercising their choice of rejection. The Court felt that this would also contribute to bringing down impersonation in voting.

The proposal for a negative vote had come from, among others, the EC in 2001 when James Lyngdoh was the chief election commissioner (CEC). It was reiterated in 2004 by CEC T S Krishna Murthy .

Though the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provide that one can refuse to vote after identifying oneself and thereafter, appropriate entries would be made by the polling officer in the electoral register, etc, this procedure did not protect the secrecy of the negative ballot. As former CEC S.Y Quraishi recently pointed out in a newspaper article, the EC has been asking for this option to ensure secrecy and bring down bogus voting and not for any other reason. The PUCL petition on which the Supreme Court based its ruling was on the same issue – maintaining the secrecy of the voting decision. The Court went a little further in its judgment and highlighted the cleansing and participatory dimensions of the negative vote.

<< Go Back To Magazine Articles Main Page