NOTA (None of the Above) in India

While deciding on a demand for providing negative voting, the Supreme Court, on September 27, 2013 had made a judgement thereby directing the Election Commission to provide the NOTA (None of the Above) option on ballot papers and EVMs. In this judgement, the Supreme Court had given the following two important pronouncements:

• Recognition of the right to a negative vote (even though it will not affect the result) as a part of freedom of expression, as envisaged in Article 21
• Direction to Election Commission to introduce NOTA on the EVM (and ballot paper) to ensure voter secrecy (earlier it used to be a register)
• India has become the 12th country to introduce NOTA or a similar option in its electoral proceedings. Other countries which provide this option are: France, Belgium, Greece, Brazil, and Bangladesh.

Implications

• The NOTA option is not new; it was there before this judgement also. However, earlier, the option was as per rule 49-O of Conduct of Election Rules, whereby the voters were required to register their option of NOTA in a register. This would compromise the secrecy of the candidates.
• By implementing the NOTA button on EVMs, the right to vote and right to not to vote have been kept at same pedestal, while maintaining secrecy.
• NOT will be electronically counted. But it will not affect the election results even if the NOTA votes exceed 50% of the total votes cast, because winner will be selected on the basis of rest of votes on the basis of first past the post system.
• NOTA is thus, basically a symbolic step towards electoral reforms to strengthen the democratic set up of India.
• In the judgment, Supreme Court also commented in the dubious quality of the candidates and need for candidates with ethical and moral values. The Court also commented on voter apathy. Voter apathy towards election is not a good sign for democracy. Responsible citizens are expected to come to the poling booth. One of the major reasons of growing voter apathy is the increased criminalization of the politics and rampant use of money power.

NOTA versus Right to Reject

NOTA is not right to reject; but will let the disillusioned voters be heard. There was a demand from some sections of the society for a “right to reject” whereby voters are given right to reject the candidates with criminal and otherwise tainted background. The demand was such that if more than 50% voters reject all candidates, there should be a forced re-election of that particular seat. It is not possible because of many practical reasons such as:

• If a list of candidates on the ballot is rejected by the voters, will all of them stand disqualified? The innocent and clear record candidates may suffer along with those who have tainted backgrounds.
• If all of them are not disqualified, then how to define, who would disqualify and who will not?
• If some of them are disqualified then for how long they would remain disqualified?
• If there is a re-election and the voters find that the new candidates are even worse than the previous ones and then again reject all of them; then will there be again a re-election. How long such re-elections would be conducted? Won’t this lead to election fatigue?
• Conducting re-elections again and again for a particular constituency consume too much resources and time.
• The Model Code of Conduct remains in force from the time the dates of election are announced by EC till elections are over. All major government decisions such as transfers, budget related etc. are put on hold in such period. If there are recurrent elections at a particular place, it will affect the works of the government.
• Frequent re-elections would lead to voter’s apathy; the turn-out will reduce in successive re-elections.
• As of now, we don’t have a right to reject. Before India heads for such right, the above questions need to be solved first. Democracy is not just about exercising the right to vote; it is also about voting responsibly.