NOTA must be treated as a candidate

The Supreme Court has done well to seek the Election Commission’s response to a petition that demands fresh elections in constituencies where NOTA (None Of The Above) wins majority votes. This may be a hypothetical situation but it has assumed significance in the light of the uncontested election of a BJP candidate from Surat. The court was told that the true choice of the people would have been known if the NOTA option was available to them to be exercised against the BJP candidate. The vote of a person who votes for NOTA has as much value as the votes of people who vote for other candidates. The voter should not be denied the right to exercise their vote in any constituency. Even when there is only one candidate in the fray, the voters should be given the chance to vote for or against that candidate. So it is wrong to declare a candidate the winner without contest in such situations. 

The petition has urged the court to frame rules on NOTA votes and how they should impact other contestants. The NOTA option was introduced in 2013 on the direction of the Supreme Court as a step to empower voters in the expression of their choice. While it has been seen as a symbolic gesture of rejection and as a negative vote, it has been rather a toothless facility than a useful tool to influence the election process. State Election Commissions in Maharashtra and Haryana have issued notifications making NOTA a fictional candidate and declared that the election would be held void and a re-election held if NOTA gets more votes than other candidates. There are countries where similar provisions exist. The petition has therefore said that these rules should be extended to other states and at the national level. It was argued that declaring the person who got less number of votes than NOTA as the winner would defeat the very purpose of NOTA and make the election meaningless. 

When a NOTA provision is there, it has to be taken seriously. Now it is used mainly to ridicule candidates who get less votes than NOTA. When the provision exists there should be a protocol on how it works. The petition has said that it has not led to increased voter participation or influenced the candidate selection of political parties. The ECI should find ways to enhance the usefulness of the NOTA facility. NOTA received about 1% votes in the last Lok Sabha election. There are parties which get less than that. The Election Commission should make it an effective electoral tool for voters, and the court should push it for that.