Source: The Hindu
Context:
The Central government has informed the Supreme Court that the “right to vote” and the “freedom of voting” are distinct concepts under the Constitution and election law. This argument was made in response to a petition challenging provisions related to uncontested elections under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Key Issue
- The petition seeks to declare Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 11 read with Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, as unconstitutional.
- These provisions allow a Returning Officer (RO) to declare candidates as duly elected without holding a poll if the number of candidates equals the number of available seats (uncontested elections).
Petitioners’ Argument
- Argued that automatic declaration without polling deprives voters of their freedom to express dissent by voting for ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA).
- They contended that this violates Article 19(1)(a) — the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Constitutional Provision
- The government distinguished between:
- Right to vote – a statutory right, granted and regulated by law (Representation of the People Act).
- Freedom of voting – an aspect of the fundamental right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The Centre argued that while freedom of voting may be a constitutional expression of choice, the right itself to vote is not inherent or fundamental, but rather conferred by statute.
Background on NOTA
- The NOTA (None of the Above) option, introduced in 2013 following a Supreme Court judgment, allows voters to express disapproval of all candidates while maintaining their secrecy of vote.
- The petition raises the question of whether NOTA should also apply to uncontested elections, where no polling currently occurs.
