Has NOTA improved quality of leaders? Supreme Court asks in plea against declaring lone candidate default winner

Has the quality of leaders elected improved with the addition of None of the Above (NOTA) option for voters? The Supreme Court on February 23 raised this query while hearing a plea seeking to make the None of the Above (NOTA) option compulsory in all elections, including those where only a single candidate is in the fray.

Pertinently, the Court said that not allowing lone candidate to be declared winner would lead to vacuum since NOTA is not a person and cannot fill a seat.

The NOTA option in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was introduced pursuant to a 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court.

However, in cases where there is only one candidate in the fray, no elections are held and such candidate is declared winner by default.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a public interest litigation petition (PIL) filed by legal policy think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (petitioner) challenging this prevailing practice of declaring a lone candidate elected without poll.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi asked whether the introduction of NOTA had in fact led to better leadership outcomes.

The Court also remarked that voting patterns often show that those who are well place financially and socially participate less in elections while those from the lower strata of economic and social ladder turn up in greater numbers to vote.

"Has the quality of leaders elected improved with NOTA. Because what tells me importantly is that the well off vote less and the the who are not economically well off vote more," Justice Bagchi said.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Vidhi, pressed for an early hearing, pointing out that elections to six State assemblies are due this year.

It was contended that permitting an unopposed candidate to enter the parliament or a legislative assembly effectively denies voters the chance to exercise the NOTA option recognised by the Court in 2013.

The Bench flagged structural concerns. It remarked that if the argument is accepted that no candidate should be declared elected without a contest, it could create a vacuum in cases of lone candidate since NOTA is not a person and cannot fill a seat.

Attorney General R Venkataramani opposed the petition, cautioning that the Court was entering into too many hypotheticals and that law cannot be tested in that manner.

It was also argued that the petitioner was indirectly seeking to elevate the right to vote as a fundamental right.

The Court also noted that its 2013 decision introducing NOTA was conceived as a persuasive exercise meant to encourage voter participation and allow expression of dissatisfaction rather than to invalidate electoral outcomes.

The matter has now been posted to April for further consideration.

[Read Live Coverage]