Ans. In a democratic setup, the right to vote is not only a right to choose but also a right to reject, as emphasized in the landmark PUCL vs. Union of India (2013) judgment. Recently, the Supreme Court questioned the legality of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows unopposed candidates to be declared elected without any voting, potentially undermining the right to reject through NOTA (None of the Above).

Why has the issue come under scrutiny?

The petition, filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in August 2024, challenges Section 53(2), claiming it violates the fundamental right of voters to express dissent, particularly through NOTA.
The SC’s 2013 ruling in PUCL vs. Union of India held that the right to cast a negative vote via NOTA is protected under Article 19(1)(a)—the right to freedom of expression.
Key Argument: The choice to reject should not depend on the number of candidates, and even in single-candidate elections, voters must be allowed to participate and express their approval or disapproval.

Legal and Constitutional Dimensions

Legal Provision	Key Issue
Section 53(2) of RPA, 1951	Allows declaration of a candidate as elected unopposed, without voting
Article 19(1)(a)	Guarantees freedom of expression, including right to vote negatively
Supreme Court ruling in PUCL (2013)	Upheld the constitutional status of NOTA in direct elections

Empirical Evidence: The Prevalence of Uncontested Elections

From 1951 to 2024, at least 26 Lok Sabha seats saw uncontested victories, affecting over 82 lakh voters.
Distribution over the years:
1. 1957: 7 uncontested
2. 1951 and 1967: 5 each
3. Others spread across 1962, 1971, 1980, 1989, and recently in 2024
However, Election Commission (ECI) counters this by stating that only 9 of the 20 Lok Sabha elections held from 1951 to 2024 had unopposed MPs.

Arguments in Favour of the Supreme Court Proposal

Protects Electoral Rights: Ensures every citizen can participate in the democratic process, even if only to reject the sole candidate.
Increases Accountability: A required minimum vote share ensures that a candidate has actual public approval, not just procedural victory.
Discourages Manipulation: May prevent scenarios where candidates attempt to win by disqualifying opponents or suppressing competition.
Strengthens NOTA: Upholds the spirit of NOTA as a valid democratic expression, regardless of the number of candidates.

Arguments Against the Proposal

Rare Occurrence: As per ECI data, unopposed elections are now extremely rare, especially post-1989.
Administrative Complexity: Holding elections with only one candidate increases cost and logistics unnecessarily.
Legal Interpretation of NOTA: The court previously held that NOTA is not a ground for rejecting an election or demanding re-election.
Symbolic vs. Substantive Impact: Critics argue that NOTA has limited practical value unless legal provisions are changed to give it binding force.

Way Forward

Reform Section 53(2) to include a provision requiring minimum voter endorsement for single-candidate elections, possibly linked to a threshold turnout or vote percentage.
Strengthen electoral participation and awareness, ensuring that citizens know their right to reject.
Introduce legal provisions empowering NOTA to trigger re-election if it receives more votes than any candidate, similar to recommendations made by the Law Commission.
Encourage greater intra-party democracy to prevent strategic avoidance of competition and promote genuine voter choice.

As Indian democracy matures, the emphasis must shift from procedural correctness to participatory legitimacy. The Supreme Court’s proposal to mandate a minimum vote share for unopposed candidates strengthens electoral integrity and reflects the evolving nature of citizens’ rights in a representative democracy. A robust democracy must not only allow people to vote—but also to reject.

Useful Links

Quick Links