The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 24) orally observed that a compulsory, yet non-harsh, mechanism may be needed to improve voter turnout, noting that voting is a valuable right of franchise.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions that seek elections even when only one candidate remains in the fray, so that voters can still exercise the option of “None of The Above (NOTA)”.
Court’s remarks on turnout and voting patterns
During the hearing, the Bench discussed whether the NOTA option has improved voter participation and influenced the quality of candidates.
“Sometimes it feels like we need to have some compulsory mechanism, not very harsh, but some compulsory mechanism, to ensure that people go and vote,” the CJI remarked.
Justice Bagchi said that, in his experience, “it is the educated and well-off people who vote less than the economically weaker people.”
The CJI also referred to rural voting patterns. He noted that people often treat polling day like a celebration. He added that women, in particular, find a break from daily work and go to polling booths in groups—sometimes singing songs.
Petitioners’ case: consequences for NOTA and single-candidate polls
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that attaching consequences to NOTA would encourage greater participation. They submitted that NOTA currently carries no consequence, and therefore gives voters little incentive to choose it.
The petitions challenge Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“RP Act”). This provision allows a candidate to be declared elected in an uncontested election.
The petitioners contend that even when only one candidate remains, the election should still take place. They also argue that if the candidate receives fewer votes than NOTA, the election should be cancelled.
Alleged “dangerous trend” in withdrawals
Datar and Bhushan also claimed that a “dangerous trend” has emerged where candidates withdraw nominations so that only one candidate remains.
They submitted that threats often precede such withdrawals, and asked the Court to take judicial notice of this practice. Bhushan argued that if elections take place even in single-candidate scenarios, NOTA could receive more votes.
During the proceedings, the CJI observed that if a candidate wins with only 35% of the votes, it indicates that 65% of voters voted against the candidate.
Union’s response and Bench’s reply
Opposing the petitions, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani submitted that electoral reforms fall within Parliament’s domain. He also said that the petitioners relied on “too many hypotheticals.”
Justice Bagchi disagreed with that characterisation and observed: “It is not hypothetical Mr. Attorney. It is possible. It can result in a contest between uncontested candidate and NOTA.”
Next hearing
The Court adjourned the matter for further hearing.
The Bench heard petitions filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Shiv Khera. In an earlier hearing, the Court had explored the idea of a minimum vote-share threshold for a candidate to be declared elected and had sought the Union’s stand on that issue.
