NOTA

NOTA – None Of The Above

Background of this issue

2001

• Election Commission of India (ECI) approached Law Ministry to, To amend the rules to provide for a button in electronic voting machines in order to protect the identity and secrecy of a voter who does not want to vote for any candidate. 
• That was the equivalent of the unmarked ballot paper of the earlier era. 
• ECI received no response to the proposal.
• Although the Minister in charge needed neither the Union Cabinet’s nod nor Parliament’s assent. 

2004

• The then Chief Election Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy, reiterated the proposal after christening the button as ‘none of the above’ (NOTA). But mentioned that it was to “to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he chooses so.” 

2009
The case came up for hearing in SC.

• The protagonists for the ‘no vote’ button need it to be as an attribute of ‘rejection’ of candidates.

Why government did not want this option?

• This would create a ‘negative’ impact in the short run.
• It may lead to the demand for a right to reject candidates and seek fresh elections.
• Hence, it sought to get the petition dismissed.

Why?

• The right to vote was not a constitutional right but only a statutory right.
• Thus the petition filed under Article 32 was not maintainable and so should be thrown out.

What does Article 32 say?

• It mentions about “Constitutional Remedies for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights”.

2013

• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
• SC ruled in favour of NOTA.
• The Court has directed the Election Commission to provide the “None of the Above” (NOTA) button in the electronic voting machines (EVM).
• It held that secrecy is an essential feature of ‘free and fair elections’ and Rule 49-O of the Election Conduct Rules, that requires for a voter choosing to abstain, to record his name in the Register of Voters (Form 17-A), violates that requirement. 
• Note that there is no change to the first-past-the-post system. 
• That is, the winner will be the candidate with the highest number of votes, even if this number is less than that polled by the “NOTA” option.
• It will only enable a voter not to vote in favour of any candidate. 
• So the votes recorded against this button will have the same fate as the ‘invalid’ votes of the ballot paper era.
• It would have no role in determining the winner. 
• Quote from the verdict

“Democracy is about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalise themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such a choice.”

• As per SC NOTA,“gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties.”

Is voting a statutory right or Constitutional right?
SC in its judgement gave a clear definition to these two. They are,

• The right to vote was confirmed as a statutory right.
• The act of exercising that right by the casting of a vote is confirmed as a constitutional right as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), the right to freedom of speech and expression.

What did SC say about “Negative Voting”?

• Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21, i.e., the right to liberty.

Why NOTA is considered to be important?

• If parties keep imposing tainted candidates on voters, the electorate can hit back with NOTA. 
• A time will come with demands for fresh election with a fresh set of candidates if, in the first election, NOTA scores the highest votes.