Is a candidate winning an election ‘unopposed' unconstitutional?
According to Section 53 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if there is only candidate contesting an election, then she can be declared elected unopposed. Now a legal think tank, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this provision.
It cites the 2013 order of the Supreme Court which held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing 'NOTA' was protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It argues that this right is independent of how many candidates are contesting – therefore, not holding the election on the grounds that there is only one candidate deprives voters of this right.
Last week, the Supreme Court, while hearing this petition, suggested that in cases where there is only one candidate, there could be a requirement that the candidate should win a prescribed minimum of vote share – be it 20% or 25% or whatever – in order to be declared as elected.
But the Election Commission seems keen to retain the status quo, arguing that cases of candidates winning unopposed are rare and therefore the court should not entertain such a petition.
Is the Election Commission right? What if the phenomenon of candidates standing unopposed becomes more widespread in the future? What happens to the NOTA option then?
Guest: Arghya Sengupta, Founder and Research Director at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Delhi.
Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu.
Edited by Shivaraj S and Sharada Venkatasubramnian
Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
J&K Assembly's nominated seats outside the realm of govt., L-G has statutory powers: MHA
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has informed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that the Union Territory's Lieutenant-Governor can nominate five members to the J&K Legislative Assembly without the government's 'aid and advice'. It said the office of the Lieutenant-Governor was not an extension of the government. The Ministry said that the nominations were 'outside the realm of the business of the elected government of J&K'. 'Once the Parliament bylaw recognises the Lieutenant-Governor as a distinct authority from the government of Union Territory under Parliamentary enactment, it necessarily follows that when a power is conferred upon the Lieutenant-Governor, then the same must be exercised as a statutory function and not as an extension of his duties as the head of the UT Government.... there can be no manner of doubt that it is the Lieutenant-Governor who has to exercise this statutory duty in his discretion, as a statutory functionary and not as an extension of the government, thus, without aid and advice,' the MHA's affidavit in court said. The powers to nominate three members -- two Kashmiri migrants, including a woman, and one member from the Pakistan-occupied-J&K (PoJK) community -- to the Assembly was inserted in 2023 with an amendment to the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 by the Parliament. The 2019 Act also provided for nomination of two women to the Assembly if in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor, women are not adequately represented in the Assembly. The amendment was challenged through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Congress leader Ravinder Kumar Sharma. While hearing the petition, the High Court on October 21, 2024 had sought a reply from the Union government on the changes to the 2019 Act. 'Whether Sections, 15, 15-A and 15-b of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, making provision for nominating the members of Legislative Assembly over and above the sanctioned strength of the Legislative Assembly, and which have the potential of converting the minority government into a majority government and vice versa, is ultra vires the Constitution being in violation of basic structure of the Constitution?' it had asked. The 2023 amendment had increased the total number of seats to 119 from the existing 114. The government had kept 24 seats vacant for the PoJK areas. In the affidavit filed on July 24, the MHA said the 'present writ petition has become academic as the scenario contemplated did not arise'. It said that 'the interpretation of Section 12 of the Union Territories Act, 1963 would pari materia apply to Sections 15, 15A and 15B of the J&K Reorganisation Act and accordingly, the nominations so made, would be made without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, being outside the realm of the business of the elected government of J&K.' The MHA said that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the claim that the nominations made under the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 exceed the sanctioned strength of the Legislative Assembly, while those under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, do not. 'The Petitioner has not provided any cogent legal basis or statutory interpretation to support such a distinction, and the submissions in this regard remain misconceived and unsustainable in law,' the MHA said. It added that Section 14(3) of the 2019 Act 'does not provide the total strength of the Legislative Assembly; but merely provides the number of directly elected members to such Legislative Assembly'. 'The sanctioned strength of the Assembly, therefore, is not 114, but 114 + all members nominated in terms of Sections 15, 15A and 15B,' the MHA said. It further said that the fallacious statutory interpretation of the petitioner was to be cross-applied to the Union Territory of Puducherry, then as per such reading, the total strength of the Assembly of Puducherry under Section 3(2) of the 1963 Act would be 30. 'Whereas, as per his own case, the sanctioned strength of the Legislative Assembly for the UT of Puducherry has been stated to be 33, i.e. 30 +3,' MHA said. The case is scheduled for hearing on August 14. The election to the 90-seat J&K Assembly was held in September-October 2024 and the results were declared on October 8, with the National Conference-Congress alliance sweeping the polls.
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Claims by leaders of offers to ‘rig polls' not credible: Fadnavis
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Sunday that he was surprised that leaders who claimed they were approached by people offering help to influence polls never complained to the police or the Election Commission. He accused these leaders of "making up" stories. On Saturday, NCP (SP) supremo Sharad Pawar claimed two individuals had met him in New Delhi before the 2024 Maharashtra assembly polls and "guaranteed" the Opposition's victory in 160 of 288 constituencies. Pawar added that he introduced the duo to Rahul Gandhi, who said the Opposition shouldn't get involved in such things. Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, echoing Pawar, claimed two people had also met Uddhav Thackeray ahead of the Maharashtra assembly polls in 2024 and promised to ensure victory "through EVMs" in 60-65 tricky seats. Insulting the mandate Talking to reporters, Fadnavis said, "I am surprised that some people approach political leaders with offers to influence elections and they (leaders) do nothing. They don't complain to the police or the Election Commission. This is all about making up stories." When the Election Commission asked political parties to show how EVMs can be hacked, no one came forward, Fadnavis further asserted. "The Opposition should stop insulting the mandate given to the Mahayuti government," Fadnavis added. The Mahayuti decimated the Opposition in the November 2024 assembly polls, with the BJP winning 132 seats in the 288-member House. The Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena won 57 seats, and Ajit Pawar's NCP 41.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
CEO asks Sunilkumar to sign declaration if he takes forward allegations on voters' list
The office of Chief Electoral Officer - Kerala (CEO) Rathan U. Kelkar has asked V.S. Sunilkumar, the Communist Party of India (CPI) candidate in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls in Thrissur, to sign a declaration/oath should he wish to persist with his allegations concerning the voters' list for the polls. The Declaration/Oath under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, requires Mr. Sunilkumar to affirm that his statement is true to the best of his knowledge and belief; that he is aware that making a false declaration in connection with electoral rolls is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and also that giving false evidence is punishable under Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The CEO's office wrote to Mr. Sunilkumar on Sunday on the basis of a letter to it from the District Election Officer (DEO)/District Collector, Thrissur, stating that the concerns raised by the political parties on the electoral revision 'were taken into account and disposed in time.' The DEO's letter to the CEO was in response to Mr. Sunilkumar's remarks to the media made on August 9. In the letter to Mr. Sunilkumar, the CEO's office strongly condemned his remarks. It has urged all stakeholders to refrain from making accusations against election officials. Election officials perform their duties with impartiality, diligence, and in strict compliance with the electoral laws and instructions of the Election Commission of India, it said. Constructive feedback and genuine grievances should always be channelled through the appropriate legal and administrative mechanisms, the CEO's office said. 'Proper procedure' When contacted, Mr. Kelkar said there was nothing extraordinary about seeking the declaration/oath. 'We have said that we have taken all steps. The District Collector, Thrissur, also has given a detailed reply. So if he wants to pursue it further, this is the proper procedure. It is not a new thing we have introduced,' he said.
