Nota-Right Not To Vote

NOTA-RIGHT NOT TO VOTE
INTRODUCTION:
NOTA or None of the Above is an option to the voters in elections to reject the
candidates who are contesting in the elections. It is an expression of rejection of
candidates in election by the voter. The idea of NOTA in elections originated in 1976 in
the State of Nevada, U.S.A. The concept of NOTA was allowed in Indian elections in
2013 by the supreme court for people to express their choice. The maximum NOTA vote
share has crossed 2.02% of the total votes polled in an election.
GROWTH OF NOTA:
The proposal of negative voting to reject all the candidates was first discussed by the
170th Law Commission Report in 1999.This was a part of alternative method of election.
The proposal was:
• no candidate should be declared elected unless they obtain at least 50% of vote
cast;
• the ballot paper shall contain a column for negative voting;
• for the purposes of calculating the 50% vote cast even the negative voting will be
treated as vote cast.
The objective behind this was to put pressure on political parties not to put forward
candidates with undesirable record that is criminals, corrupt elements etc. The
government refused to entertain NOTA. However People's Union for Civil Liberties
filed a PIL on the same issue in 2004.
Sec 49-O Of The Conduct Of Election Rules,1961:

Before NOTA came into existence the right not to vote was governed by Sec.49-O of the
Conduct of Election Rules,1961. It states: “Elector deciding not to vote- If an elector,
after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form
17A and has put his signature and thumb impression thereon as required under sub-
rule(1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made
against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb
impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.”
The difference between s.49-O and NOTA is that s.49-O does not provide secrecy. It
gave the chance to poll officials a chance to find out reason behind the rejection of
candidate by the voter. The EIC was concerned that the introduction of EVMs and the
implementation of the rule 49-O of the Election Rules had made it impossible to protect
the secrecy of voting for those who wanted to abstain. This is not the case in NOTA.
NOTA maintains secrecy and poll officials cannot find out the reason behind the
rejection of candidates. It gives voter a chance to express their choice. Hence the s.49-0
stood annulled after the supreme court judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs
Union of India in 2013.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT:

People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India
People's Union for Civil Liberties filed an PIL on 2004 for introducing NOTA during
election. The petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32 of Indian Constitution
challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2) and 41(3) and 49-O of Conduct of
Election Rules,1961. The said provisions recognizes the right of a voter not to vote but
the secrecy of not voting is not maintained.
The Supreme Court held that though the right to reject is merely a statutory right but this
right is the essence of democracy. Free and fair elections is the basic structure of
constitution and includes the right of an elector to cast his vote without fear of reprisal
and coercion. Thus, the Supreme Court hold the rules 41(2) and 41(3) and 49-O ultra
vires of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting.
The two main points came out from this judgment:
• Right to vote also includes right not to vote. The voter has right not to opt for any
candidate in the election.
• Right to secrecy is a integral part of a free and fair election. The voter has right to
express himself without the fear of reprisal and coercion.
NOTA vs RIGHT TO REJECT:

NOTA as an option does not amounts to rejection of a candidate. As per former CEC
S.Y. Qureshi, NOTA is not the same as right to reject. He gives an example where even
if there are 99 votes cast in favour of NOTA ,out of a 100, the candidate who who got
only one vote will be declared as winner, for having obtained the most number of valid
votes. As per notification of election commissioner, if a situation arises where the
number of NOTA votes exceeds the number of votes polled by any of the candidates, the
candidate with the highest number of votes is declared as winner irrespective of number
of votes cast for NOTA. The motivating factor behind the right to reject is good
governance, which can also be achieved even without introducing right to reject through
NOTA. The supreme court in its 2013 (PUCL vs UOI) judgment and EIC's demand,
clearly states that the intention of introducing NOTA was to protect the secrecy of voter.
The justificatory rationale for introducing the right to reject has not been made out. The
Law Commission in its 255th report rejects the extension of the NOTA principle to
introduce a right to reject the candidate.
CONCLUSION:
The introduction of NOTA in our country has brought immense changes. The main
motive of NOTA was to maintain secrecy. It aims to empower the voter to reject the
candidates and to express their disapproval during election polls. The intention of
supreme court was to force political parties to project their candidates with clean
background. The NOTA will accelerate the effective participation; foster the purity of
electoral process and also wide participation of people.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• 170th Report of Law Commission
• 255th Report of Law Commission
• Conduct of Election Rules,1961
• SCC Online

Nota-Right Not To Vote

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nota-Right Not To Vote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nota-Right Not To Vote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTA-RIGHT NOT TO VOTE

Sec 49-O Of The Conduct Of Election Rules,1961:

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT:

NOTA vs RIGHT TO REJECT:

You might also like