Our country will be the fourteenth in the world to opt for negative voting. This has become possible with the verdict of a Bench of the Supreme Court of India. In a 50-page verdict, the Bench has very forcefully advocated for conceding to the voters the right of not voting in favour of any candidate on the basis that they do not think any of the listed candidates is capable of representing them in the parliament or the assemblies. Obviously, the entrenched politicians and political parties in the country find that the verdict is hard to swallow as they are used to a system of yes or no. A close study of the verdict leaves little for any doubt that this is an upright judgment though some mute voices have been raised that it might mean some incongruity in the ultimate outcome of voting in a given constituency. Primarily, the Bench has given due importance to Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India according to which casting of the vote is a facet of the right of expression of an individual and the said right is provided under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and “not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 i.e., the right to liberty.
Before delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court Bench has closely and minutely considered all aspect of negative voting and the entire background that has prompted the court to come to the decision. Till date the practice has been that voters who do not find any of the listed candidates up to their expectation, would not come out to cast their vote. This would make the case of non-genuine candidates easier for obtaining sizeable votes from a particular constituency. Now the “None of the above” (NOTA) option will show the scale of popularity of a candidate with the electorate who is contesting the election. Essentially, the verdict is meant to ensure that genuine, capable and meritorious candidates are elected and this is one of the means of strengthening and improving the standard of our democracy. We all agree that our electoral system needs reforms and only the right candidates should be given the field to prove their popularity through democratic process. The standard of values and commitments has dwindled dangerously in the country and there are some areas that cannot be tackled by the existing legal system. It is true that the Constitution says that people will elect their representatives. But the experience says that the Constitution should say that only able and meritorious candidates are elected. The question is who is to judge the merit and ability of a prospective law maker? The answer is simple. It is the voter who has to know him closely and who is satisfied that the candidate comes up to his or her expectation. The people are the best judge of the capabilities of the candidate. It is the people who will set the standard for high moral and ethical values which a candidate must have. Therefore the verdict of the people is the final word on the ability and merit of the candidate. By encouraging the voter to express his opinion including his right to vote negatively by pressing the NOTA on the voting machine, he or she strengthens democratic process in the country. After all our democracy is in an evolutionary process and we need to overcome the bottlenecks that appear in the system from time to time.
We understand that within hours of the verdict, the Election Commission of India has issued instructions to the concerned to add the button NOTA in the Electronic Voting Machines in a phased manner and the work on the process have already begun. Though two major mainstream national political parties, namely Congress and BJP, had not commented on the judgment so for, yet CPI (M) seems to have raised its eyebrow saying that the verdict is going to cause some difficulties. But there seems little for dissenters to challenge the authority of the law and Right to vote as well as right not to vote have been statutorily recognized under Section 79(d) of the Representation of People’s Act and Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Rules respectively. Whether a voter decides to cast his vote or decides not to cast his vote, in both cases, secrecy has to be maintained. Furthermore the court has very rightly argued that if the MPs have the option of “Abstention” apart from Yes or No on any motion in the Parliament, why should not ordinary people have the right to NOTA which is almost tantamount to Abstention?
Earlier in another landmark judgment, the Apex Court had restrained people in custody from contesting elections. It has ruled that MPs and MLAs would stand disqualified after being convicted of serious crimes. This verdict caused serious rumblings in the UPA government and negative forces within managed to circumvent the Court verdict by proposing an Ordinance which would protect convicted lawmakers from immediate disqualification. This has stirred up commotion within the Congress Party since its Vice President, Rahul Gandhi has called the Ordinance nonsense and worth tearing up and throwing into a waste paper basket. Even the President, not fully convinced of aptness of the draft Ordinance, has rightly raised questions and demanded the Ministers to come out with a convincing reply. Some important issues are involved. Firstly, the Apex Court has struck down the electoral law that provides protection to convicted candidates. Secondly, by bringing in the Ordinance, the UPA government has not only trivialized the verdict of the court but has also dragged the President into a legal row. Thirdly, the Ordinance is clearly seen as a political gimmick in the prospect of 2014 Parliamentary elections being round the corner. Lastly and more importantly, it is a retrograde step in the process of returning only clean and capable persons as the representatives of the people in the Parliament and State Assemblies. Democracy is a stuff that deals with ordinary people and not with persons, as is the case with the incumbent government at the moment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel