{"id":609,"date":"2020-11-18T09:23:29","date_gmt":"2020-11-18T09:23:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/?p=609"},"modified":"2020-11-18T09:23:29","modified_gmt":"2020-11-18T09:23:29","slug":"empowering-nota","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/2020\/11\/18\/empowering-nota\/","title":{"rendered":"EMPOWERING NOTA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Prof. V.P. Gupta<\/strong>, Director, Rau\u2019s IAS Study Circle, New Delhi \u2013 Jaipur \u2013 Bengaluru<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\narticle caters to the Polity and Governance portion of
\nGeneral Studies-Paper II and Essay Paper in
\nUPSC Main Examination.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\noption of None of the Above (NOTA) on Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) gives the\nvoters the option not to vote for any of the candidates in the election. The\nnumber of votes cast for NOTA signifies voter\u2019s preference not to elect any of\nthe candidates fielded by various political parties and in a way this is a way\nof not accepting any political candidate during an election process. It was\nwith this perspective, the concept of NOTA was allowed in Indian elections from\nSeptember 2013 by the Supreme Court for people to express their choice.\nHowever, apart from finding its existence on EVM, NOTA is yet to find political\nsignificance as a tool for greater social and political change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nsporadic incidents, we often hear news on giving NOTA political credence by\ncertain aware section of the society who believes in clean and transparent\npolitical process. In Kerala, a group of women activists hit the road urging\npeople not to elect any candidate if no woman was present in the fray. In Tamil\nNadu, a youth group campaigned for NOTA as a protest vote against corruption.\nNOTA polling figures are still small. On an average, the maximum NOTA vote\nshare has not crossed 2.02% of the total votes polled in any election cycle\nwhich is a small number. If NOTA has to gain value, then it must prove its\nworth not only in terms of number of votes cast but also in terms of its social\nvalue and as an agent of social change through better choice of candidates\nfielded by political parties. In this article, let us understand and analyse\nthe life of NOTA after its inception through a Supreme Court judgment.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evolution of\nNOTA<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nproposal to introduce negative voting to reject all the candidates if voters\nfound them unsuitable was first discussed by the Law Commission in its 170th\nReport in 1999. This was a part of \u201calternative method of election\u201d where\ncandidates would only be declared elected if they obtained (50%+1) of all the\nvalid votes cast. However, the Law Commission cited practical difficulties in\nimplementing such idea of negative voting. The Election Commission of India\n(ECI) supported similar introduction of a negative vote, first in 2001, under\nJames Lyngdoh as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and then in 2004 under\nT.S. Krishnamurthy, in its proposed electoral reforms report. However, the ECI\nwas concerned with certain aspects of secrecy for those who wanted to abstain\nfrom voting. Further, the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms prepared by the\nLegislative Department of the Law Ministry in 2010 also favoured the\nintroduction of negative voting. However, considering government\u2019s refusal to\nentertain the idea of NOTA at a substantial level, the People\u2019s Union for Civil\nLiberties filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the same issue in\n2004.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme\nCourt\u2019s decision on NOTA <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe issue of right to reject, the Court was primarily concerned with the issue\nof secrecy of voting as it is recognised an international principle. The\npremise of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision was that secrecy of voting is crucial\nto maintaining the purity of the electoral system. As per the Court,\nguaranteeing of secrecy during casting of vote would increase public\nparticipation in the electoral process, which is fundamental for strengthening\ndemocracy. The Court held that NOTA would empower the people, thereby\naccelerating effective political participation, since people could abstain and\nregister their discontent (with the low quality of candidates) without fear of\nreprisal. Simultaneously, it would foster the purity of the election process by\neventually compelling parties to field better candidates, thereby improving the\ncurrent situation. The Court also relied on international principles governing\nthe right to secrecy as an integral part of voting and free elections under\nArticle 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25(b) of\nthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR). The Court held\nthat democracy is about political choice of a citizen and hence eligible voters\nshould have the option of rejecting candidates who were standing for elections\nin their constituency as per their choice. So, the Court directed the ECI to\ninclude the option of NOTA in all Electronic Voting Machines. Thus, after\nSupreme Court\u2019s judgment in PUCL v. Union of India in 2013, the ECI has allowed\nNOTA as an option in the election process.    \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is NOTA\nequivalent to Right to Reject?<\/strong>  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOTA\nas an option in its present form is simply a protest vote without any electoral\nweight or value and does not carry the gravity that amounts to rejection of a\ncandidate. As per former CEC S.Y. Qureshi, NOTA is not the same as the right to\nreject. He gives an example where even if there are 99 votes cast in favour of\nNOTA, out of a total 100, the candidate who got only vote will be declared the\nwinner, for having obtained the most number of valid votes. As per notification\nof the Election Commission, if a situation arises where the number of NOTA\nvotes exceeds the number of votes polled by any of the candidates, the\ncandidate with the highest number of votes is declared as winner irrespective\nof number of votes cast for NOTA. Thus, the votes cast for NOTA as of now do\nnot have any electoral significance. Also, a vote cast for NOTA does not amount\nto Right to Reject for any candidate. There have been demands from different\nsections of the society to give electoral value to the votes cast for NOTA.\nThis seems bit uncertain as without the concept of Right to Reject in an\nelection, votes cast for NOTA will not have much electoral significance.\nMoreover, a right to reject must be accompanied by some alternative because\nParliamentary Democracy thrives on election of candidates and not on their\nrejection. Law Commission in its 255th Report has also rejected the concept of\nextending NOTA as the right to reject and has suggested introducing the concept\nof right to reject at a future date.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law Commission\nOpinion on NOTA  <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law\nCommission in its Report has mentioned that the motivating factor behind the\nright to reject is good governance which can be successfully achieved even\nwithout introducing right to reject through NOTA. Efforts should instead be\nmade to implement the already existing provisions on decriminalising politics\nand increasing political awareness; and introduce other provisions such as\ninner party transparency and election finance reform. Thus, stressing the\nalternatives for a clean and transparent election free of money and muscle\npower, the Commission in its 255th Report has rejected the idea of extension of\nthe NOTA principle to introduce a right to reject the candidate and invalidate\nthe election in cases where a majority of the votes have been polled in favour\nof the NOTA option.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some\nstatistics on NOTA <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Association\nfor Democratic Reforms in collaboration with National Election Watch have\nanalysed the number of votes secured by NOTA in various elections since\n2013.  Let us go through some of the\nstatistics on NOTA : <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea In 2014, NOTA was first introduced in Lok Sabha\nelections. Overall, NOTA secured 60,02,942 (1.08%) votes. Among the NOTA votes\nin Lok Sabha elections, the highest number of votes i.e. 46,559 was in Nilgris\nconstituency in Tamil Nadu. The lowest number of votes NOTA secured i.e. 123\nvotes was in Lakshadweep.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea Among State Assemblies elections, NOTA has\nsecured the highest percentage of votes in 2015, i.e. 2.08% (9,83,176 votes) in\n2 State Assemblies elections of Bihar (9,47,279 votes), NCT Delhi (35,897\nvotes).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea Since its implementation in 2013, NOTA has\nsecured the highest number of votes in Bihar (9,47,279 votes) State Assembly\nelections, 2015 and secured the lowest number of votes in Mizoram (3,810 votes)\nState Assembly elections, 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea Red Alert Constituencies are those which have 3\nor more candidates with criminal cases contesting elections. NOTA has secured\n22,94,904 votes (22.94 lakhs) in the red alert constituencies in State Assembly\nelections since 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea NOTA has secured the highest percentage of\nvotes in red alert constituencies of Chhattisgarh. NOTA secured 2.68% votes\n(39,896) in 10 red alert constituencies of Chhattisgarh.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ea NOTA secured the highest percentage of vote\nshare i.e.  3.06% in Chhattisgarh State\nAssembly, 2013.  NOTA secured the lowest\npercentage of vote share i.e. 0.40% in Delhi State Assembly elections,\n2015.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion :\nGiving NOTA a chance <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Votes\ncast for NOTA need to be recognised despite its electoral non-significance. But\nto do so, NOTA has to be declared as a \u201cperson\u201d under the eyes of law. This\nwill at least give NOTA some credence and voters a sense of pride for their\nvotes cast. Some of these utopian ideas have been implemented by the State\nElection Commission of Haryana. The State Election Commission of Haryana in\ncompliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s directive in PUCL v Union of India, has\nissued an order regarding application of NOTA option in the local body\nelections. As per the notification, NOTA shall be treated as a \u2018Fictional\nElectoral Candidate\u2019 while declaring the election results. So in case, a\ncontesting candidate and the \u201cFictional Electoral Candidate\u2019 i.e. NOTA receive\nhighest equal number valid votes then the contesting candidate (not NOTA) shall\nbe declared as elected. However, if in any election, all the contesting\ncandidates individually receive lesser votes than the \u2018Fictional Electoral\nCandidate\u2019 i.e. NOTA, then none of the contesting candidates will be declared\nas elected and re-election shall be held for the seat. Further all such\ncontesting candidates who secured less votes than NOTA shall not be eligible to\nre-file the nomination\/contest the re-election. In re-election, if NOTA again\ngets highest votes then further election will not be conducted and contesting\ncandidate with highest votes (excluding NOTA) shall be declared as\nelected.     \n\nAs we can see, the States have started experimenting with the idea of\ngiving NOTA a chance. This is an important step taken by the State Election\nCommission of Haryana and will prove to be a beacon of hope for other States as\nwell as for the Centre. The idea of NOTA has been reserved for a future date by\nthe Law Commission of India but the time to seize the opportunity by giving\nNOTA a chance begins no later than the present times to bring a social and\npolitical change with a hope for a better, cleaner and more participative\ndemocratic process.\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prof. V.P. Gupta, Director, Rau\u2019s IAS Study Circle, New Delhi \u2013 Jaipur \u2013 Bengaluru This article caters to the Polity and Governance portion of General Studies-Paper II and Essay Paper in UPSC Main Examination. The option of None of the Above (NOTA) on Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) gives the voters the option not to vote […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/609"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=609"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/609\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":610,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/609\/revisions\/610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}