Consider mandating minimum vote share even for unopposed candidate: Supreme Court to Centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought to know whether it can be laid down in the election law to mandate a certain percentage of votes even when there is only one candidate in the fray for declaring him/her elected.
'Will it not be a very welcome and progressive step where only one candidate is left in free [fray] and still you say that you will be declared election [elected] only when you get at least 10%, 15% (votes), whatever…,' Justice Surya Kant presiding over a two-judge bench asked the Centre and the Election Commission of India.
'Our Constitution, and we salute it, is one of the most dynamic… It says that democracy by majority… So when we talk of the majority as the foundation stone of the democracy, why not in furtherance of achieving that very goal, we prescribe that even in a default direction, there should be at least some voters who are liking you,' Justice Kant said.
The bench, also comprising Justice N K Singh, was hearing a plea by 'Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy', praying that section 53(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, in so far as it applies to direct elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies be read down or struck down as unconstitutional. The provision says that in case of an uncontested election, the Election Commission shall declare the only existing candidate as the winner forthwith without holding an election.
Appearing for the think tank, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar referred to a hypothetical situation where 3-4 candidates file nominations from a constituency and all except one withdraw on the last day. He said if there are 1 lakh voters in the constituency of whom 10,000 want to vote for the candidate but 25,000 people want to vote NOTA, should they be not entitled to do so?
Contesting his submission, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said that in the last 25 years, there's only one case where an election was uncontested. 'Otherwise it's always contested'.
Datar said he is only flagging the potential danger because there can be situations where a candidate may get others to withdraw so that he or she emerges victorious.
Justice Kant said that even treating it academically, 'it will be a very good reform… It's not something that should cause any inconvenience to anyone.'
Justice Kant said, 'NOTA you have accepted, after the judgment of this court, as expressing the will by a voter. But here, you are in fact helpless… so are the voters. This situation may arise, may not arise. But in case, if you have a proposal like this that where eventually more than one candidate files nomination and at the last moment, the other candidates would go and there is only one candidate left, then at least say you can say…10%, 15%, 25 % voters will be required to vote for it.'
Dwivedi said that the NOTA judgement was convenient to implement, adding, 'that's a larger reform where even in general elections, one may say unless you get 50% of the electorate, you can't win. That's a larger question which Parliament will have to engage in.' Justice Kant said, 'You may be right to say that you are governed by the parliamentary law…We are only saying today you please examine… because after all our democratic system has addressed every challenge and every Indian feels proud of that.'
The judge said, 'today you don't have a problem. But you can enact something visualising that if tomorrow this problem comes, I have a weapon ready to address it. That's all. What can be that, it's your wisdom, if Parliament will decide…Why should we allow somebody to enter Parliament by default who is unable to get even 5% vote? You may think of that because you are representing the will of the people.'
Justice Kant said it will also ensure that the entire constituency will be better represented and promote multi-party culture. Dwivedi said that 'according to our experience, NOTA is a failed idea. It is creating no impact on the elections. It may be a case where some candidates get less than NOTA, but the winning candidates are never impacted by it.'
Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani said he agreed with Dwividi's submissions and said: 'If something is desirable then the court will look at the point of desirability but you can't strike down a law for that reason.'
Justice Surya Kant said the court is not thinking of striking down anything but only adding a proviso. 'We are not considering striking down anything. We are only impressing upon you to add something in the existing law.'
The AG said that 'even on that it has to be some deliberations elsewhere…'
The Court agreed that more deliberations would be necessary and gave the Centre four weeks to file its response. The SC will hear the matter again in July this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Kerala seeks Centre's nod to kill problematic wild animals straying into human habitations
The Kerala government has written to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change seeking permission to kill problematic wild animals straying into human habitations and pose a threat to people's life and property. In line with a recent Cabinet decision, the State has sought immediate action to delegate powers vested with the Union government in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to the Chief Wildlife Warden, and to 'simplify the related procedures, protocols, guidelines, advisories and so on' to eliminate animals, particularly those included in Schedule I of the Act. The government had earlier raised multiple requests to amend the law, declare wild pigs as vermin, and to shift bonnet macaque from Schedule I to Schedule II to enable management and mitigation measures at the 'State-level in a site-specific manner.' While these requests are yet to be considered, the State, has used to considerable effect, the provision of the Wildlife (Protection) Act to delegate the authority held by the Chief Wildlife Warden to Honorary Wildlife Wardens to kill wild boars that venture out of forests into human-inhabited areas and pose danger to society. While the measure has been found to be 'quite effective' in managing human-wild boar conflicts, the government recently decided to request the Centre to provide/extend such powers for other species that create problems in human habitations outside forests.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Kerala Governor takes dig at CPI over 'Bharat Mata' issue
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar criticised CPI, the second largest party in ruling LDF, that hoisted national flags and raised 'Bharat Mata ki jai' slogans as a mark of protest against the use of Bharat Mata portrait at Raj Bhavan during an environment day event. In an apparent reference to the CPI campaign but without naming them, Arlekar, at an event here said, "Those who never thought of 'Bharat Mata' are saying 'Bharat Mata ki jai'. That is a good contribution. I appreciate that." At the same time, the Governor said that 'Bharat Mata' cannot be an issue for debate. "It cannot be an issue for discussion. How can it be? 'Bharat Mata' is above everything and beyond everything," he said. Arekar further said that while everyone may have their different thoughts and ideologies, "we are all brothers and sisters, that particular thing has to be there in our minds". On the other hand, CPI state secretary M V Govindan said that there is no concept of 'Bharat Mata' as it is not there in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the CPI said it was currently not going to have a discussion with its ally CPI on the issue. "We do not think now is the time for a discussion on that," CPI state secretary Binoy Viswom said. The row was kicked off when the Raj Bhavan decided to use a 'Bharat Mata' portrait for the Environment Day event, resulting in it being boycotted by State Agriculture Minister and CPI leader P Prasad. He claimed that the portrait was the one used by the RSS. He had also said that the portrait was not authorised as the official version by the Constitution or the Indian government. Following Prasad's boycott of the event, the Governor had issued a statement saying that "Whatever be the pressure, from whichever quarters, there will be no compromise whatsoever on Bharat Mata." Subsequently, the CPI had announced that it would hoist the national flag, which is the symbol of Bharat Mata, at all its branches on Saturday and would plant saplings in front of it as a mark of protest against the Governor's stand.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
High Court reiterates creation of ‘leaders parks' for installation of statues instead of public places
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reiterated the creation of 'leaders parks' across Tamil Nadu for installation of new statues and relocation of existing statues for which permission was already granted. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that instead of installing statues of leaders in public places, the court had elaborately considered the issue and directed the government to identify lands for creation of the required number of 'leaders parks' across the State. Accordingly, permissions have already been granted and statues are to be relocated in the 'leaders parks'. The formation of 'leaders parks' would be of much benefit to youth as they can learn about the ideas and ideologies of the leaders. Instead of making concrete efforts for the formation of 'leaders parks', the government cannot issue orders granting permission to install statues in public places, the court observed. On account of heavy traffic congestion and other mitigating factors, the general public are put to hardship in the event of granting such permission to install statues in public places. The rights of citizens in all respects guaranteed under the Constitution are to be protected by the State, the court observed. The Supreme Court had passed an order directing no further installation of statue or construction of any structure on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places are to be permitted. A Division Bench of Madras High Court also passed orders. When the Supreme Court passed an order not to grant permission to install statues in public places, the State government cannot pass orders granting such permission, the court observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by Palsamy of Tirunelveli district who had sought a direction to restrain the authorities from installing a bronze statue and name board of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi near the entrance of Valliyoor daily vegetable market in Valliyoor in Tirunelveli district. The State submitted that instruction had been issued to the Collector not to install the statue of the former Chief Minister and action will be taken to withdraw the G.O. issued. The court posted the matter for reporting compliance on July 16.
