A
look through the Mist
Voter need be also given the option to reject only a particular candidate by
reducing his/her score by one
The civil society activists and NGOs will have to
work in this direction
By
Daya
Sagar
A apex court bench headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice P
Sathasivam has in its 27th
September order directed the Election Commission of India to provide 'none of
the above options' ( NOTA) at the end of the list of candidates in electronic
voting machines (EVMs) and ballot papers to allow voters to reject candidates
contesting polls . It is surely a good humble beginning although right to reject a contesting
candidate and to recall a defaulter / non performing legislator have also been the demands of some people fighting for
electoral reforms in India. The order of the SC has to be implemented immediately starting with the upcoming assembly elections in five
states – Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram.
Provision for registering ‘vote’ for no candidate
did exist but it violated the ‘secrecy’ code. Under the present election rules,
a voter who does not want to cast his ballot in favour of listed candidates can do so by filling up form17 A by requesting
the presiding officer . But the existing provision is contrary to rules which provide for
absolute secrecy in voting. A voter who fills up form 17A reveals his identity
to all persons, including activists of various political parties. Average
voting these days is around 45% to 50%. One of the reasons is people do not
have faith or trust in the system. Though the polling day is declared a public
holiday, the voter turnout remains low. Partly it is because voters are unable
to express their disapproval of the candidates or the parties in a secret
manner.
But how far will this change will improve the
conduct of the contesting political parties, contesting candidates and the
voter citizen need be seen keeping in
view that the right given and procedure suggested by SC i.e is to either vote in favour of one of the candidates or reject all the candidates. The apex court has
opined ( on 27th September
2013 ) that if right to vote is
statutory right, right to reject candidate is fundamental right of speech and
expression under Constitution and citizens have right to cast negative vote
rejecting all candidates contesting polls where as the government (
respondent) had submitted before the
apex court that the writ ( filed by a NGO ,People's Union for Civil Liberties
–PUCL demanding right for negative voting) was not maintainable as 'right to
vote' was neither a fundamental nor a constitutional right, but only a
statutory right.
No
doubt we can hope that negative voting
(NOTA) would lead to systemic change in polls and political parties will be
forced to project clean candidates but how far the effects would go in the
immediate future will have to be tested.
It
is a hard reality of the day that in elections huge sums of money are exchanged
between the candidates and brokers to allure the innocent and economically poor
voters (ii) the caste / religion
plays significant role in elections (iii) the right to reject would not effect a
particular candidate specifically (iv) the people who are in the habit of
not casting their vote may still not go for casting vote they may think that
they will not be able to reduce the vote count of a particular candidate whom they may be
considering a nominated anti social
element (v) some ‘better off’ people may
not still go to vote but those who are made to vote for a particular candidate
in terms of material allurements or other social pressures would go and
vote (vi) may be some people who
otherwise go to vote and vote for the
better of the lot, now go and vote for NOTA
(vii) the NOTA account would equally affect all candidates and those who
have caste/ religion/ money/ muscle power
influenced voters would get benefitted. So,
how far a simple provision like that of NOTA would put unscrupulous elements
and impersonators out of the polls will have to be further discussed since it
is not a Negative voting.
Similarly
it is being understood that NOTA option
would not effect the result of an election in case more electorate chose to cast negative/neutral
votes than the maximum polled in favour of a particular candidate
in the fray. Former CEC N Gopalaswami has been quoted as having explained to TOI, that even if 90 voters in an electorate of 100
persons press the NOTA button, the poll will be decided in favour of the
candidate who gets the maximum of the remaining 10 votes.
No
doubt Commission shall also make appropriate changes in Part-2 of Form 17C used
during vote counting and Form 20 to
separately compile the number of persons who used the option not to vote for
any of the candidates in the fray. In case NOTA gets highest number of votes,
who would win ? I would say reelection
in the constituency would be the available option. And to add, in case more
than half the Constituencies vote for NOTA, surely no government would be
formed till result of reelection in NOTA ‘constituencies’ is known. Uncertainty
surrounds such like questions.SC Bench has not advised what will happen if the
votes cast under the NOTA option outnumber the votes received by any candidate.
The question needs answer.
No
doubt , though the facility of registering a neutral vote was already provided
under rule 49 –O (
Elector deciding not to vote.—If an elector, after his electoral roll number
has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his
signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule
49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made
against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature
or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark)
the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 but secrecy can be maintained only in a ballot system. The Apex Court Bench too has held that Election Conduct Rules 41(2) and
(3) and 49-O ultra vires Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act
and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of
voting. Under Rule 49-O of the Conduct
of Election Rules, 1961, a voter can ask the presiding officer to record that
he is unwilling to vote anyone ,who in turn would make an entry in the relevant
rule book after taking the signature of the said elector. Many people even did not know this. The proposal for some thing like negative/neutral voting was
also made EC in December 2001 (CEC JM
Lyngdoh ) and later carried by CEC TS Krishnamurthy
in July 2004. So, with NOTA provision atleast secrecy would be maintained.
It
can be hoped that the decision would encourage people not satisfied with
contestants to turn up for voting and would further empower the voters in exercising
their franchise .
But how far the Judgment will help clean up
politics when it is also a fact that people
vote on the basis of caste, region and religion
will depend upon the process of creating awareness among people to clean
up the system.
But the provision of negative voting can bring more of the needed systemic change in the election
process by forcing the political parties to project clean candidates in polls in case the
apex court as well as Election Commission
also consider / examine putting a ‘Not
This Candidate’ ( NTC) Vote button along
side the YES button for each candidate. Voter need be given the
option to reject all candidates ( NOTA)
or reject only a particular
candidate- Not This Candidate ( NTC )
by reducing his / her vote by one (
negative vote).
Of
course SC order is surely a warning
call for
the institutions to maintain their own credibility. If the political
system is not going to maintain its credibility, other institutions would take
over reform process.
No comments:
Post a Comment