New Delhi: The Supreme Court and the Union government were at odds on Thursday on the issue of whether courts should examine the issue of “unopposed” legislators getting an easy walk-through into Parliament and assemblies as the top court said the issue raises an interesting question worth examining while the Centre dismissed it as an “academic” exercise not meriting interference by courts.
A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, “This issue slightly appears to be an extension of the NOTA principle. If there is only one candidate and electors don’t want him to be elected through NOTA, that is a silent expression of the electorate which is an interesting question.”
The none of the above (NOTA) option is provided by the Election Commission (EC) for voters who do not choose to endorse their support to any of the candidates in the fray.
The bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, further deliberated, “The election of unopposed candidate is not in the hands of the people. So, they may want to go and vote for NOTA as well. This is an issue which will require some examination.”
The observations came after attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union government, informed the court that the Centre has reflected on the issue and found it to be an “academic” question that need not be interfered with at the instance of the courts.
He said: “After 1991, there is hardly any instance of candidates getting elected unopposed. Why should the court go into such an academic question?”
Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for direct election of candidates in an uncontested election.
The court was considering this issue in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which threw up questions on whether the law allowing an unopposed candidate to enter Parliament or Assembly defeats the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of NOTA provided by the court.
The petitioner disputed the Centre’s version terming the issue “academic” and mentioned 26 instances of unopposed or uncontested candidates making it to Parliament since 1952.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SD Sanjay, also appearing for Centre, pointed out going by the logic that if NOTA option is exercised against the lone candidate in fray, the elections would be countermanded. “If fresh elections are to be held, same situation will again arise. There will be no end,” the ASG said.
The bench replied, “That situation won’t arise as by the next election, all political parties will set up candidates.”
Earlier this year, the court had sought a response from EC, which had said that no election had been decided with a majority of NOTA votes since 2013 when the Supreme Court directed this option to be provided on the electronic voting machines. It further stated that since the coming of the 1951 Act, there were only nine such instances.
The petitioner argued that the issue can be decided for the future as voters cannot be deprived of choosing their elected representatives due to section 53(2) of the 1951 Act.
In April, the court observed that any candidate getting elected should be able to get a minimum threshold of votes of his/her constituency, which could range from 5-15% of the total votes in the parliamentary/assembly segment.
The court had then observed: “We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised. Keeping the growing trend and dimensions in the political field, there is a possibility of some affluent candidate getting elected unopposed when those who are contesting withdraw. Voters may suddenly realise they have no choice, and they cannot oppose as he will be elected. In such a situation, both EC and the voters are helpless.”
