New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the practice of declaring the sole candidate as duly elected in “uncontested” polls.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan agreed to examine the plea and sought responses of the Centre and ECI in the matter.
Further, the apex court asked the petitioner, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, to serve a copy of the petition on the office of the Attorney General of India.
The plea referred to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, providing that in case of uncontested elections, the returning officer will declare the sole candidate as duly elected for filling up such uncontested seat. Section 53 provides that in case of an ‘uncontested’ election, where the number of contesting candidates is equal to or lesser than the number of seats to be filled in the election, the returning officer will declare all the contesting candidates as duly elected and prohibits him from conducting a poll.
This consequent act of not conducting a poll completely prevents voters from choosing the ‘None of the Above Option’ (NOTA) in such elections, thereby expressing their dissatisfaction with the contesting candidate, the plea said.
It added that non-holding of election in an uncontested seat violates a fundamental right, as the Supreme Court judgement in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, had held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing the NOTA option on an EVM is protected in direct elections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Section 53 applies to both direct elections – i.e. constituency-based elections to the Lok Sabha and state Legislative Assemblies, as well as indirect elections – i.e. elections by proportional representation to the Rajya Sabha and state Legislative Councils.
The plea said that in the 2024 Arunachal Pradesh elections, 10 of the 60 seats were won uncontested and 11 seats were won uncontested in the state Assembly elections held in 2014. It further said that the impugned provisions are not in the interests of transparency, for eg. in all constituencies where polls were not conducted, the ‘voter turnout’ – could not be recorded.
In April this year, the Supreme Court had agreed to examine a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission (EC) to frame guidelines or rules, if, in any election, all the contesting candidates individually do not surpass NOTA.
(IANS)
