Question before SC: are ‘unopposed' election victories unconstitutional?

Indian Express

27-04-2025

The Supreme Court suggested last week that in case there is only one candidate in an election, she should be required to obtain a prescribed minimum vote share in order to be declared elected, rather than winning without the election being held.
The court was hearing a petition by legal research think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy questioning the constitutionality of Section 53(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, as far as Lok Sabha and Assembly elections are concerned.
This section ('Procedure in contested and uncontested elections') says that 'if the number of…candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats'.
The court has asked the Union government to file its response within four weeks.
Petition and argument
The petition, filed in August 2024, argues that not holding the election in case of a single candidate prevents voters from choosing the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option, which amounts to a violation of their fundamental right.
The petition cites the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, in which the court held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing NOTA was protected in direct elections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
It argues that 'this right, by which the voter indicates her disapproval of the entire field of candidates, must be agnostic to the number of candidates in the fray'.
Uncontested elections
Candidates were elected uncontested to Lok Sabha at 26 constituencies between 1951 and 2024, the petition says, citing statistical reports of the Election Commission of India for these years. As such, more than 82 lakh electors had been deprived of the chance to cast their vote in these elections, it says.
Of these 26 no-contests, seven took place during the Lok Sabha election of 1957, five each in the elections of 1951 and 1967, three in 1962, two in 1977, and one each in the elections of 1971, 1980, 1989, and 2024, according to the petition. Last year, the BJP candidate from Surat, Mukeshkumar Dalal, was declared elected 'unopposed' after all other candidates either dropped out or had their nominations rejected.
Uncontested elections are more common in state Assemblies, the petition says.
Response of ECI
In its counter affidavit submitted earlier this month, the Election Commission pointed out that only nine of the 20 Lok Sabha elections held from 1951 to 2024 had seen uncontested elections of MPs. And in the more than three decades since 1989, only one candidate had entered Lok Sabha uncontested.
'With the evolution of democracy, more number of political parties are contesting elections and hence, the number of candidates also increases automatically and the voters have also become more aware and eager to exercise their franchise to right to vote. The chance of an election being uncontested has become a rarity which is proven from the statistical data and hence, in such a scenario, [the] court ought not to entertain the present petition,' the ECI said.
The Commission argued that 'NOTA' cannot be assumed to have automatically contested every election.
It cited the court's NOTA judgment that a button should be added to the electronic voting machine (EVM) to give an option to those who did not wish to vote for any of the candidates in the fray.
'Hence', the ECI said, 'NOTA option can be exercised when the polling takes place where the voters come to the polling booths to cast their votes… Therefore, treating NOTA as a mandatorily contesting candidate in all direct uncontested elections does not find place in the statute and the same would require legislative amendments in the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of the Elections Rules, 1961.'
Justice Surya Kant, who presided over the two-judge Bench, said during the hearing on April 24: 'Will it not be a very welcome and progressive step where only one candidate is left in [fray] and still you say that you will be declared [elected] only when you get at least 10%, 15% [votes], whatever…?'
'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.
He asked the government to 'please examine' the question, because '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'.
What that weapon can be, 'it's your wisdom, if Parliament will decide', he said. '[But] 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.'