Source: Economic Times

Introduction

As the first phase of 2024 general elections has started from 19^th April 2024 the discussions related to “None of the Above” (NOTA) option on the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) is in the limelight. NOTA let the voters explicitly reject all candidates contesting in their constituency or electorate. It also aims to increase voter participation by giving people an option beyond just boycotting the polls.

What is Background of NOTA?

• History of NOTA:
  • In its 170^th Report in 1999, the Law Commission explored the concept of negative voting alongside a 50%+1 voting system, but practical challenges led to no final recommendations on the matter.
• Role of Election Commission of India (ECI):
  • The ECI backed NOTA in 2001 and 2004 as a response to concerns about voter secrecy due to EVMs. They proposed adding "NOTA" as an option to address this.

What are the Landmark Cases Related to NOTA?

• Lily Thomas v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (1993):
  • Supreme Court held that “Voting is a formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue in question” and that “right to vote means right to exercise the right in favour of or against the motion or resolution. Such a right implies right to remain neutral as well”.
• People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr v. Union of India & Anr (2013):
  • In 2004, the People's Union for Civil Liberties filed a PIL.
  • The Supreme Court mandated the provision of a "None of the Above" (NOTA) button on EVMs to allow voters to express dissatisfaction with contesting candidates while maintaining secrecy.
  • This decision came to enhance democracy by empowering voters and promoting fair elections.
  • The Election Commission was directed to implement this provision with government assistance, along with conducting awareness programs.
• Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India Through the Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. (2018):
  • The Supreme Court held that “The option of NOTA may serve as an elixir in direct elections but in respect of the election to the Council of States which is a different from other elections, it would not only undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of defection and corruption.”
  • Hence the court scrapped NOTA from Rajya Sabha elections.

What are the Legal Provisions related to NOTA?

• Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
  • It provides secrecy in voting.
  • The article states that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
• Section 25(b) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
  • It states that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions and unreasonable restrictions to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
• Section 79(d) in The Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • “Electoral right” means the right of a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate, or to vote or refrain from voting at an election.

Conclusion

NOTA provides voters a way to go to the polls and withhold their approval from any candidate without boycotting the election entirely. It aims to make votes of protest formally countable. It signals the degree of popular dissatisfaction with the field of candidates to political parties.