Supreme Court Proposes Vote Share Requirement for Elections

The Supreme Court of India recently suggested change in the electoral process. The court proposed that if only one candidate stands for election, they should secure a minimum vote share to be declared elected. This recommendation arose during a hearing concerning the constitutionality of Section 53(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section currently allows a candidate to be declared elected unopposed if the number of candidates equals the number of available seats. The court’s suggestion aims to enhance democratic participation and ensure that elected representatives have a mandate from voters.

Context of the Petition

The petition was filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in August 2024. It challenges the existing provision that allows candidates to be elected unopposed, arguing that this practice violates voters’ rights. The petition marks the importance of the None of the Above (NOTA) option, which enables voters to express disapproval of all candidates. The Supreme Court’s previous ruling in 2013 established that voters have the right to choose NOTA, reinforcing the need for this option in all elections.

Statistics on Uncontested Elections

Between 1951 and 2024, there have been 26 instances of uncontested elections in Lok Sabha constituencies. This has affected over 82 lakh electors who were denied the opportunity to vote. The frequency of uncontested elections has varied, with several occurring in the early years of Indian democracy. Notably, the 2024 election saw a candidate declared elected unopposed due to the withdrawal of all other candidates.

Election Commission’s Response

The Election Commission of India (ECI) submitted a counter affidavit arguing that uncontested elections are rare. Since 1989, only one candidate entered the Lok Sabha unopposed. The ECI attributed this rarity to the increasing number of political parties and heightened voter awareness. They contended that the NOTA option cannot be assumed to apply to uncontested elections, as it is intended for situations where polling occurs.

Judicial Perspective

Justice Surya Kant, presiding over the two-judge bench, emphasised the need for a minimum vote share. He argued that allowing a candidate to win without securing portion of the vote undermines the democratic principle of majority representation. The court’s inquiry into this matter aims to ensure that future elections uphold the will of the people.

Potential Legislative Changes

The court has requested the Union government to respond within four weeks. This response could lead to legislative amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such changes may introduce requirements for minimum vote shares in uncontested elections, enhancing the democratic process and ensuring elected representatives have a legitimate mandate.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the Supreme Court’s proposal for a minimum vote share in elections.
2. Explain the significance of the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option in the context of Indian electoral democracy.
3. What are the factors contributing to the rarity of uncontested elections in India? Discuss with examples.
4. With suitable examples, comment on the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring fair electoral practices.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the Supreme Court’s proposal for a minimum vote share in elections.

1. Enhances democratic legitimacy by ensuring elected candidates have voter support.
2. May discourage unopposed elections, promoting competitive electoral environments.
3. Could lead to legislative amendments, impacting the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
4. Addresses voter disenfranchisement by ensuring a choice, even in single-candidate scenarios.
5. Potentially increases voter turnout as candidates strive for minimum vote shares.

2. Explain the significance of the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option in the context of Indian electoral democracy.

1. Empowers voters to express disapproval of all candidates, promoting accountability.
2. Reinforces the principle of choice in elections, enhancing democratic engagement.
3. Acts as a tool for voters to signal dissatisfaction with the electoral process.
4. Supports the right to free expression as established by the Supreme Court in 2013.
5. Encourages political parties to improve candidate selection to avoid NOTA votes.

3. What are the factors contributing to the rarity of uncontested elections in India? Discuss with examples.

1. Increased political party participation leading to more candidates contesting elections.
2. Greater voter awareness and engagement, reducing apathy towards elections.
3. Statistical evidence shows only one uncontested candidate in Lok Sabha since 1989.
4. Historical instances, like the 2024 election, highlight that uncontested elections are exceptions.
5. Legal and procedural changes have made it easier for more candidates to enter the fray.

4. With suitable examples, comment on the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring fair electoral practices.

1. Regulates and supervises the electoral process to ensure free and fair elections.
2. Implements guidelines for candidate nominations, as seen in the 2024 uncontested election case.
3. Monitors election campaigns to prevent malpractices, ensuring a level playing field.
4. Educates voters about their rights, including the NOTA option, enhancing informed voting.
5. Statistical reporting on election outcomes, like the number of uncontested elections, aids transparency.