SC allows NOTA

In a landmark ruling for India’s democracy, the Supreme Court empowered citizens to cast a negative vote to convey to political parties that none of the candidates in the fray in an election is worthy of their vote.
The order’s impact could be evident as early as the assembly polls due in November and the 2014 Lok Sabha elections since the apex court has directed the Election Commission (EC) to begin providing ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) option in electronic voting machines (EVMs) in a phased manner. It has also asked the EC to carry out an awareness programme for voters.
But there could be complications given that in India, candidates securing far less than 50% of the votes cast get elected on the first-past-the post principle. In such a scenario, if negative votes exceed ballots secured by a successful candidate, it will mean the elected representative does not enjoy the confidence of a majority of voters.
The SC verdict is, however, a shot in the arm for voter rights advocated by activists and pro-choice campaigners who feel voters must have the option of rejecting candidates they are asked to pick from. This, it is hoped, will lead to more suitable candidates being fielded by parties.
Even if the NOTA option gets more votes in a constituency than any of the candidates, that will not nullify the elections. The candidate getting the most votes will still win. In that sense, this is a negative vote, but not a right to reject Indian voter’s hot new button

The combined effect of four landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, delivered in a span of just 80 days, has triggered a massive debate by touching crucial aspects of elections — from credentials and criminal antecedents of candidates to the right of voters.
The SC’s focus in these judgments — the first two delivered on July 10 by a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya — was the voter.
The first verdict came on a petition filed by advocate Lily Thomas, which was argued by noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman. Much to the discomfort of the political class, the court ruled that if an MP or MLA was convicted in a serious offence and sentenced to two years imprisonment or more, he would lose his seat immediately.
Through this judgment, the court took away the cushion provided by Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that allowed netas to keep their seats in legislatures if they appealed in a higher court within three months of the pronouncement of order of their conviction and sentence.
The bill to nullify the judgment was referred to a parliamentary standing committee following differences between the ruling coalition and the opposition. Interestingly, the government lost patience and took the ordinance route to circumvent the SC order only to be slammed by Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi.
But the political class was unanimous in taking prompt steps to nullify the other July 10 judgment on a petition by Jan Chowkidar that had banned arrested persons from contesting elections. Politicians felt that the judgment would provide a handle to ruling dispensation to arrest potential winners from opposition on the eve of filing nomination to bar them from the contest.
In another important judgment on September 13, the court had ruled that no one could contest elections without making a full and honest disclosure about his/ her assets and educational and criminal antecedents. On Friday, the SC ruled that voters had an intrinsic right to cast a negative vote, telling parties that none of the candidates fielded by them were worthy of votes.