LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgement on the issue of providing voters an option to cast a negative vote during elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. A bench of Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi reserved the verdict after two days of arguments during which then Commission supported the plea of the petitioner PUCL that a voter must be given the option to cast a negative vote. The bench's decision came after Election Commission's counsel Meenakshi Arora argued that if such an option of casting a negative vote was not extended to voters it might be violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) (Freed of speech and expression). Concluding her arguments before the bench, Meenakshi suggested that the court can give appropriate directions to the Centre for making necessary amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act for ensuring a separate slot in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in which a candidate can cast a negative vote. Under the existing provisions of Sections 49(O)of the Representation of Peoples Act, a voter who after coming to a polling booth does not want to cast his vote has to inform the presiding officer of his intention not to vote, who in turn would make an entry in the relevant rule book after taking the signature of the said voter. According to the PUCL Section 49(O) was violative of the Constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 19 (1( (a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and violated the secret ballot concept. Meenaskshi backed the petitioner's plea that if a voter is compelled under the statutory provision to disclose his intention not to vote then he/she would be prone to threats. This is possible in villages, she said. Whereas if a separate slot is reserved in the EVMs then a voter would be able to cast his vote in the column "None of the Above" thus expressing his resentment against the candidates in the fray. Such an exercise would also enable the political parties to evaluate the voters real intent and expression of choice. But since the present system compels an unwilling voter to disclose his intention to the presiding officer it is violative of his/her fundamental right of speech and expression, the commission's counsel submitted. However, the Centre had earlier opposed any such provision on the ground that the existing provision was in no way violative of the Constitution as was being alleged. The Centre took the stance that just as a voter has a right to vote, he or she has also the choice of refraining from voting or going to the polling booth. According to the Commission it was for the Centre to make amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act for incorporating the provision, as the EC has no powers to decide such issues on its own. Rejecting the PUCL argument, the Centre has maintained that the concept of secret ballot system was relevant only to the Presidential election involving Members of Parliament. The Centre submitted that the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution had earlier examined the issue of introducing negative votes slots in EVMs but decided not to press for the same as it was not practical. "It may be unrealistic to expect a reasonable percentage of voters to come simply to say that they do not wish to vote for any of the candidates," the Centre had said. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) had filed a PIL in 2004 seeking separate slots in electronic voting machines (EVMs) to give a voter the option of "none of the above", if he or she does not want to vote for any of the candidates standing in an election. The Election Commission earlier in an affidavit had stated that it had written to the Union Government as early as in 12th December, 2001 recommending such a provision.
"Loved reading this piece by Prakash Yedhula?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




  Views  267  Report



Comments
img