January2014

Rally

January2014

Rally

January2014

Rally

DEMOCRACY in India is a total failure. Therepresentatives whom we chose have failed miserablyto protect the interest of the nations and the voters.The role of voters in a democracy stops with votingand they are never part of decision making process.This can’t be a true democracy; it is rather a pseudodemocracy.The ‘merits’ of a tree is known from the fruit it bears.The fruit of Indian democracy is sour and pungent. Thefault is not with the philosophy of democracy but withthe ‘actors of democracy’. The fruits of democracy arehighly dependent on the ideology and the attitude ofthe elected leader and not on the basic tenets ofdemocracy. It becomes subservient of the ‘actors ofdemocracy– the elected representative and the people.That is why we have a quite a good number of electedrepresentatives acting like Hitler. Take the case of achief minister down south who is more than a dictator.A few years back, just by the stroke of the pen, entiregovernment staffs were dismissed en masse only tobe reinstated later. These politicians are adorning thechair of chief ministers as democratically electedleaders. Almost all of them are corrupt to the core.

Indian democracy gives power to people for a day(voting day) in five years and the voters suffer for therest of the period regretting. The MLAs and MPs nevertake decision that might be in tune with popularsentiments and in the interest of the general public thatvoted him to power. They have least regard to ascertainpopular sense of the people and often take decisionsthat are against public interest. They become highlyautocratic, roaming around creating a cult like statusfor themselves and their parties. They are never in syncwith public mood and sentiments. They live in a worldof fantasy where they are the masters and the rest are

TOWARDS A VIBRANT DEMOCRACYDr.G.John

National Animator

slaves. Arrogance, call it political stupidity, engulfs allpolitician that virtually cuts him off from listening topeople who voted him to power. This is the danger of‘representative democracy’ that is rotten in India.

Our politicians are shameless and insensitive.When a large number of people are reeling underintense cold, living in tents with fear and insecurity afterMazaffarnagar riots unleashed by right wing politics,the UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav celebrated ‘SaifaiMahotsav’. The festival, part of an annual ritual at MrYadav’s ancestral village in Etawah district, is into its15th edition now. This has come under heavy criticismby the political opponents trying to draw some bloodout from the UP CM. “While children are dying daily inthese camps, Yadav is organizing ‘Saifai Mahotsav’,with shows by dancers from foreign countries andBollywood,” Union Steel Minister Beni Prasad Vermatold reporters, as if Beni Prasad Verma is very sensitiveand concerned about the welfare of the people. AkhileshYadav made it a point to watch performances byBollywood top actors like Salman Khan, DeepikaPadukone and Madhuri Dixit, which brought down thecurtains on the fortnight-long ‘Saifai Mahotsav’ onWednesday night. Seven jets were chartered to fly theBollywood entourage - including Ranveer Singh, MallikaSherawat, Alia Bhatt and Varun Dhawan - into Saifai, the ancestral village of the Yadav clan, to take part inthe grand finale of the jamboree. Crores of moneywasted: whose money?

Added to this, the ministers in AkhileshYadav cabinet embarked on the 20-day-long tour of theUK, Turkey, Netherlands, Greece and the UAE to studyparliamentary techniques in those countries at a timewhen the state government is facing flak formismanagement of Muzaffarnagar riots where

1

January2014

Rally

thousands of people remain displaced. All theseinsensitivities happening while countless news reportsand independent surveys by civil society organizationsand individuals have highlighted the plight of riot victimsin sub-human conditions in relief camps!

A 30-member Karnataka legislators are planningto take off to three Latin American countries in January,“ to study the water falls in the Amazon forests andsporting activity,” which will cost the state exchequerRs 2.25 crore. But state of Karnataka is facing severefinancial crisis and farmers are facing drought likesituation.

But these politicians never seem to mind all thesecriticism as their tenure is sealed in cement. The voterswho sent them to assemblies can’t call them back fortheir inefficiency and any kind of misdemeanour. Thetrue democracy should give powers to the citizens tocall back their elected representative if they fall shortof expectation, if they don’t perform well, or don’t act inthe interest of the people.

An average Indian is totally frustrated with theIndian polity and political governance. But he has noother option, as almost all candidates fighting theelections share the same legacy, a corrupt legacy. Heis not even able to express his displeasure with thepresent system of politics. The present system ensures

that one of them will get elected, even if all of them arenot good candidates. What kind of democracy it is?

We don’t have the right to reject candidate, and infact, we are forced to choose from among thecontesting candidates, even if all of them are dislikedby the voters. Not only that, the voters should have theopportunity of expressing their displeasure against acandidate, who is a criminal for instance by castingnegative votes against him. NOTA is a step in thatdirection of ensuring real democracy. But it is notenough.

As of now there no provision to count the NOTAvotes and hence they will not have any impact on theresult of the election. To make NOTA more meaningful,there should a provision for conducting a re-election ifNOTA votes are more than what the winner has polled.The citizens of this country should be sensitizedregarding this and NGOs and social activists shouldplay a greater role in taking forward this message tothe people of this country.

Delhi election result has infused a new ray of hope,a hope for alternative political governance in India. Letus cease this opportunity, drive away all the dirtypolitician out of the political mainstream, and embarkon a new path leading to a vibrant democracy that reallygives power to people.

Or re-election with different candidates? But hold on,we are not voting for individuals, but for the policiesand trust behind their party / individual! So replacingcandidates will make little difference.

Or re-election with same candidates with revisedpolicies? These kind of uncleared questions makesthe NOTA critical choice, also considering the re-election expenses added as an additional excuse tosay “no” to NOTA.

Behold. There is an unnoticed side of NOTA. Lookat the “Locus of control” in the democratic set up. It issupposed to be “the people”. But what about India? Itis the “Political Parties”!

Only NOTA can shift the control backto the people. As the people are forcedto elect one among them as mentionedearlier, the parties hold supremacy andmonopoly among them. NOTA will givea sense of fear in them that people mayreject all of them for sure if they donot perform. This will lead to a Masspolitical change and bring people backto the power and a good governance.The fear of disqualification will reallythreaten the parties.

2

January2014

Rally

ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to registera “none of the above” vote in elections should apply, noting that it would increaseparticipation. The judges said that this “would lead to a systemic change in polls and politicalparties will be forced to project clean candidates”. “Democracy is all about choices andvoters will be empowered by this right of negative voting,” said the order passed by abench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam.

The “none of the above” (NOTA) choice differs radically from “right to reject” (RTR).Although the votes registered as NOTA are counted, they will not change the outcome ofthe election process.

The Supreme Court ordered the Election Commission to provide a NOTA button on thevoting machine which would give voters the option to choose “none of the above”. TheElection Commission has said that the judgment will be implemented immediately. Althoughfrequently termed a “right to reject” in India, a former head of the Election Commission hasnoted that it is not in fact such a thing.

INDIAThe Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court in 2009that it wished to offer the voter a “None of the above” option at theballot, which was something that the government had generallyopposed. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, a non-governmentalorganisation, filed a Public-interest litigation statement in supportof this.

3

January2014

Rally

ACCORDING to the direction of the Court, the option has to be providedon electronic voting machines and ballot papers to enable those not wantingto vote for any candidate to exercise their option in secrecy. The court alsoheld that the provisions of Rule 49-O under which one not wishing to votefor any candidate had to inform the Presiding Officer about one’s decision,are ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution [protection of certain rightsregarding freedom of speech] and Section 128 [maintenance of secrecy ofvoting] of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The rationale behindthis position is that under the existing system of implementation of theprovisions of Rule 49-0, the principle of secrecy is violated.

Under the Rule, if one, after putting one’s signature or thumbimpression on the Register of Voters (Form17A), decides not to cast vote, such anelector should not be compelled to vote.

A remark to the effect that theelector has decided not to vote –“Refused to Vote” – should be entered inthe Register. Apart from the off icialconcerned, the elector has to appendhis or her signature/thumb impression.

An official of the department says that the Rule 49-O has wider scopeas electors may have more than one reason for deciding not to vote, unlikein respect of the provision for NOTA that points to the people’s rejection ofthe given set of candidates in a constituency.

For instance, an elector may decide not to vote as an impulsive reactionbecause he or she feels upset over the way an official at the polling stationtreats him or her.

This and many more such reasons may even have nothing to do withthe assessment of electors about candidates in their constituency.

This is why the Rule 49-0 may be considered relevant, the officialexplains.

Clarification on Rule49-O Sought

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu clarification-on-rule-49o-sought/article5318237.ece?ref=relatedNews

THE SUPREME COURTon Monday refused to direct theElection Commission to hold freshpolls if the majority of theelectorate exercises ‘None of theAbove Option’ (NOTA) in theelectronic voting machines whilecasting their votes.

A three-judge of Chief JusticeP. Sathasivam and JusticesRanjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoitold the counsel for the petitionerthat it was for the legislature toamend the law as it was too earlyto pass such a direction. The CJIsaid: “The NOTA has beenintroduced recently and it remainsto be seen how the people respondto it. We cannot give such adirection. It is for Parliament toamend the law. If you want, yougive a representation to thegovernment.”

The petitioner Jagganathsought a direction to the ElectionCommission not to declare theresults when the majority ofelectorate opted for NOTA in theelectronic voting machine.

The apex court had onSeptember 27 held that the votershad a right to exercise the optionto reject all the candidatescontesting in an election byexercising the NOTA option andthe Election Commission hasintroduced it in the Assemblyrecent elections in phases.

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO

DIRECT EC TO HOLD FRESH

POLLS IF MAJORITY EXERCISE

NOTA OPTION

Under the Rule, if one, after putting one’s signatureor thumb impression on the Register of Voters (Form17A), decides not to cast vote, such an electorshould not be compelled to vote.

4

January2014

Rally

CIVIL LIBERTIES activists in India have had to fightlong for, first, the right to cast a negative vote, and next,to protect the secrecy of this negative ballot. In the ageof the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), once the invalidvote ceased to exist, voters hadonly one option to show theirdissatisfaction with the candidatesseeking to represent them, andwith the whole political system:staying away from the pollingbooth. The problem, of course,was that the activist-protesters gotclubbed with those too lazy tostand in a queue and vote. Thencame the recourse to 49-O, a rulein the Conduct of Election Rules,which allowed voters to not casttheir vote after entering the pollingbooth and registering theirelectoral roll number in the registerof electors in Form 17A. Under thisrule, the voters had to record theirdecision to not vote in the remarkssection of the form available with the presiding officer.This record of non-voting was necessary to ensure thatthe presiding officer was able to tally, after the voting cameto an end, the total votes polled with the number of voterswho had signed against their roll number in the register.But this effectively compromised the secrecy of the so-called negative vote. After a long legal battle, the SupremeCourt ordered the provision of a “None of the Above”(NOTA) option in EVMs and ballot papers at the end ofthe list of the contesting candidates.Potential

Hard-won it might be, but NOTA can at best nudgethe electoral system towards incremental changes. Whiledelivering the judgment on this issue, the Supreme Courtexpressed hope that this would accelerate effectivepolitical participation of the people in the democraticsystem and empower the voters. In its immediate effect,

ONLY THE STARTING POINT FOR A CLEAN-UP

Unless the NOTA option is accompanied bymeaningful electoral reform, voters cannot beexpected or compelled to flock to polling booths

however, a NOTA vote is not much more than an “invalid”vote on a ballot paper. The NOTA option cannot result inthe rejection of the entire list of contestants, and even ifa majority of the people press the NOTA panel on theEVM, the contestant with the largest number of votes

would still win under the first-past-the-post system.

If the NOTA option holds notjust some symbolic value, and isnot a mere outlet for moraloutrage, it is because of what itcould do rather than because ofwhat it is. Former Chief ElectionCommissioner N. Gopalaswamisays in his article in The Hindu(editorial page, “NOTA smallmatter, this,” October 9, 2013), “atime will come with demands forfresh election with a fresh set ofcandidates if, in the first election,NOTA scores the highest votes.”NOTA will gain political legitimacywhen it outscores the contestants.

Then, it is hoped, the option would not be allowed toremain impotent, and there will be a popular demand forthe cancellation of the election.

But if the realisation of NOTA’s potential is a desiredgoal, then the time to invest NOTA with more purpose isnow and not later after an election in which NOTAoutscores the winner. Indeed, if a NOTA vote that canreject all contestants is in place, political parties mightpay more attention to who they are nominating ascandidates.

In the NOTA judgment, the Supreme Court voicedthis expectation of political parties: “When the politicalparties will realise that a large number of people areexpressing their disapproval with the candidates beingput up by them, gradually there will be a systemic changeand the political parties will be forced to accept the will ofthe people and field candidates who are known for their

“When the political parties willrealise that a large number ofpeople are expressing theirdisapproval with thecandidates being put up bythem, gradually there will be asystemic change and thepolitical parties will be forcedto accept the will of the peopleand field candidates who areknown for their integrity.”

Article - 1

5

January2014

Rally

integrity.” But electoral reform in India has been slow,and often at the initiative of the judiciary.

The National Commission to Review the Working ofthe Constitution under M.N. Venkatachaliah consideredand rejected both the concept of negative voting and recallof elected representatives on grounds of being eitherimpracticable or unnecessary. However, it gave seriousthought to making 50 per cent of the total votes plus onevote as the minimum for a candidate to get elected, anda run-off if no candidate met that requirement. But theCommission stopped short of including it as arecommendation, and instead, suggested that thegovernment and the Election Commission study the issuemore carefully: “In the circumstances, the Commissionwhile recognising the beneficial potential of this systemfor a more representative democracy, recommends thatthe Government and the ElectionCommission of India shouldexamine this issue of prescribinga minimum of 50 per cent plusone vote for election in all itsaspects, consult various politicalparties, and other interests thatmight consider themselvesaffected by this change andevaluate the acceptability andbenefits of this system. TheCommission recommends acareful and full examination ofthis issue by the Government andthe Election Commission ofIndia.” Instead of waiting forNOTA to emerge as aspringboard for change, this could be made the startingpoint for reform.Mandatory voting

Interestingly, the introduction of the NOTA optionseems to have prompted a clamour for mandatory voting,especially from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Thetwo concepts are related, but not inseparably intertwined.But in the reasoning of former BJP president L.K. Advani,now that the NOTA option serves the purpose of thosewho want to stay away from voting for political reasons,voters no longer have any justification for not going tothe polling station. “As things stand today, voters whowithout any legitimate justification have not beenexercising the valuable right of franchise the IndianConstitution has conferred on them have, unwittingly thus,been casting a negative vote against all the contesting

candidates without intending to do so,” he wrote on hisblog. “I hold, therefore, that a negative vote would becomereally meaningful if it is accompanied also by theintroduction of mandatory voting.”

But what about those who profess no faith in theelectoral, or even the democratic, system? Is theirobjection to voting not politically valid? If voting were tobe made compulsory, a negative vote is, of course,integral to the process. But the reverse is not true. If anegative vote were to be made mandatory, compulsoryvoting need not follow. Mandatory voting will bemeaningful only when accompanied by a negative vote,but, contrary to what Mr. Advani says, a negative doesnot need any infusion of meaning from mandatory voting.A negative vote is a simultaneous assertion of faith in thepolitical system and of absence of faith in the given set

of political players.True, there are several

countries which have madevoting mandatory. But in anydemocracy, the deterrence canbe no more than a nominal fine.The principle behind thenegative vote is that no votershould be “forced” to “choose” arepresentative he does notapprove of. But merely becausea voter is free to reject allcandidates, she cannot beforced to go to a polling station.Making voting compulsory willmore than negate the gain madewith the introduction of the

negative vote. The negative vote emanates from anegative right to stay away, in whatever manner, from apolitical process free from any governmental coercion.To make participation in the political process mandatorywill be in violation of this very same negative right. Illnessor some pressing work or plain laziness can be validreasons to stay away from the polling booth. But moreimportantly, in a democracy, the voters have the right tonot participate in voting. The right to vote, whether it is afundamental right or a mere statutory right, if it is a rightat all, implies the right to not vote. The NOTA option is astep forward; it should be used to further widendemocratic choices, and not allowed to bring in coercivemeans to increase voter participation.

“As things stand today, voterswho without any legitimatejustification have not beenexercising the valuable right offranchise the Indian Constitutionhas conferred on them have,unwittingly thus, been casting anegative vote against all thecontesting candidates withoutintending to do so,”

Source: The Hindu, October 11, 2013

6

January2014

Rally

THE CITIZEN of India alwayshad the right not to vote, since votingis not compulsory. And he couldexercise this right by simply stayingat home. And he could either abstainfor “conscientious” reasons, orbecause he was lazy.In the ballot-paper days, theconscientious abstainer could makehis point more pro-actively if hewished, by going to the pollingstation, taking the ballot paper andthen returning it unmarked (Rule41(2), Conduct of Election Rules1961). He would have voted“negatively”, but by the very act ofreturning, he would have disclosedthe nature of his vote. The onlyoption he had, if he wanted tomaintain secrecy, was todeliberately cast an invalid vote.

The problem was aggravatedwith the introduction of electronicvoting machines (EVMs). Now,there would be no green light on thecontrol unit and no “beep” if he didnot press a button. This again wasa public disclosure of hisdissatisfaction with all thecandidates.

The presiding off icer wasrequired to record that no vote was

SUPREME COURT TRIGGERS BEGINNING OFELECTORAL REFORMS

Right to Reject:

cast, and obtain his signature orthumb-impression against theremark (Rule 49-M, Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961). Thiscompletely deprived him of his rightto secrecy, apart from striking downthe offending provisions of theConduct of Election Rules 1961, thecourt has directed that a “NOTA”(none of the above) option beprovided in the ballot papers andEVMs so that the voter keeps hischoice to himself.Secrecy of Ballot

The judgment clears theconfusion created by the court’s ofexpressed view that the right to voteis not a fundamental right. Itreiterates that it is a statutory right.But it makes it clear that once aperson acquires the right to vote hisfundamental right to freedom ofexpression under Article 19(1)(a)cannot be restricted, and that rightextends not only to choosingbetween rival candidates, but also toindicate his dissatisfaction with all ofthem.

In the electoral context, thisdissatisfaction also has to beexercised in secret. Secrecy ofballot is essential for free and fair

elections and, if a positive vote issecret, so should a negative vote be.Not guaranteeing him the secrecyof the negative vote infringes hisfreedom of expression.

There is also the question of theright to equality under Article 14 ofthe Constitution which the courtnotices. If the “positive” voter hasthe privilege of secrecy, so shouldthe “negative” voter. Unconvincingly,the court also brings in “liberty”under Article 21.

Apart from its significance in thejurisprudence of fundamental rights,the judgment will, in due course,improve the quality of public life.Low voter turnouts have neverpersuaded parties to put up bettercandidates.

Now, a recording of significantnumbers of negative votes willensure that political parties do notchoose candidates with doubtfulcredentials. If the voter knows thathis negative vote is going to havean impact, there is greater incentivefor him to go to the polling booth torecord his protest actively, insteadof staying at home. The court rightlybelieves that this will curb bogusvoting.

In the ballot-paper days, the conscientious abstainer could make his point morepro-actively if he wished, by going to the polling station, taking the ballot paperand then returning it unmarked (Rule 41(2), Conduct of Election Rules 1961). Hewould have voted “negatively”, but by the very act of returning, he would havedisclosed the nature of his vote. The only option he had, if he wanted to maintainsecrecy, was to deliberately cast an invalid vote.

7

January2014

Rally

This judgment is a greatexample of a ‘co-operative’ litigationbetween the citizen and the ElectionCommission. After all, it was theCommission itself which set the ballrolling way back in 2001 by writingto the government, asking for theNOTA provision (the PUCL writpetition was filed in 2004). TheCommission argued in its letter thatthe electoral right under section79(d) of the Representation of thePeople Act 1951 included the rightnot to cast a vote.

It said that the NOTA optionwould promote free and fairelections and provide an opportunityto the elector to express his dissentagainst or disapproval of thecontesting candidates. The Centralgovernment, of course, played

spoilsport in the litigation, but thatis not something to fret about. Goodlaw is laid down by the courts onlywhen rival viewpoints are examined,and not when parties happilyconcede.Beginning of Reform

The court is being faulted fornot spelling out the furtherconsequences of its decision.Suppose, it is asked, in a givencase, the number of negative votesis in excess of the highest numberof votes polled by a candidate. Whatwould be the consequence? This isnot a matter for the court to decideor prescribe. It is entirely a matterfor Parliament.

Practically, of course, it isunlikely that a situation of this naturewill arise. But if it does the answer

must be consistent with the ‘firstpast the post’ system, which wefollow. If with even 40% of theelectorate voting, it is the candidatewho gets the highest number ofvotes who gets elected, the resultmust be the same, when themajority of the recorded votes arenegative.

Even in such a situation, it isthe candidate with the highestnumber of positive votes who will getelected. Any other view would leadto a constitutional stalemate, andthe death of parliamentarydemocracy itself.(The writer is a senior SupremeCourt advocate and was additionalsolicitor general in the NDAgovernment)

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to direct the Election Commission to holdfresh polls in case the majority of the electorate exercises ‘None of the above’ (NOTA) option recently introducedon its direction to allow voters to reject all the candidates.

The court refused to entertain a PIL filed by one Jaggan Nath, seeking its direction to the commissionnot to declare the results when the majority of electorate goes for th NOTA option in the electronic votingmachine (EVM).

The court had on September 27 given the path-breaking verdict, holding that the voters have a right toreject all candidates contesting polls in a constituency by pressing NOTA, a button for negative vote.

It had said this would compel political parties to field “sound” candidates who are known for their integrity.NOTA has been introduced by the commission for the current assembly elections.The apex court had said that there was a “dire need” of negative voting which will bring “systemic

change” in the election process as “the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people” and fieldclean candidates when a large number of people express their disapproval with the candidates being put upby them.

The verdict, which was likely to encourage people to go to polling booths to express disapproval againstcontestants, had said, “By providing NOTA button in the EVMs, it will accelerate the effective politicalparticipation in the present state of democratic system and the voters in fact will be empowered.”

SUPREME COURT DISMISSES PLEA FOR REPOLLIF MAJORITY EXERCISES NOTA OPTION

Nov 25, 2013

Source: The Economic Times,September 29, 2013

Source: The Economic Times, November 25, 2013

8

January2014

Rally

NONE OF THE ABOVE OR NOTA. This should not be seenas just another button added on the Electronic Voting Machine to discardall the candidates in fray, but should be seen within the ambit of the growingneed to go in for some radical changes in the process of electing thepeople’s representatives. Electoral reforms, that is. With the SupremeCourt already ruling that a Member of Parliament or a Member of LegislativeAssembly should be immediately disqualified if he or she is convicted by aCourt of Law, the fresh directive from the Supreme Court to the ElectionCommission of India to add the NOTA button does not seem like an ideaplucked from thin air. The right to vote and the right not to vote shouldstand on the same pedestal is the principle that can be seen in the directiveof the Supreme Court to the ECI. Itshould also serve as a reminder toall political parties that they owe it tothe electorate or the voters to offerthem the best options available.Empowering the voters, nothing lessand this is what would makedemocracy more vibrant and healthyand not just a term that is to bebandied about. The need for electoral reforms has long been felt and TheSangai Express had on more than one occasion put across this point,especially in the run up to the last Assembly election in 2012. It was in linewith this thought process that The Sangai Express published an articletwice, something unheard of and not practised in the world of journalism.But it was done under the conviction that the said article, written by anelderly gentleman, merited the attention of the people. The said articlewas also referred to in the editorial column of this paper on more than oneoccasion, again under the conviction that something needs to be done toneutralise the ills that accompany the election process in the country, moreso in a place like Manipur, where money and muscle power rule the roost.

Rightfully the Supreme Court has not said anything on what shouldbe done in case the votes cast under the NOTA option outnumber thevotes received by the candidates. That is for the Election Commission ofIndia to decide and work out the modalities. But some suggestions maybe made and options may be offered for the ECI to explore. In case theNOTA votes outnumber the votes received by the candidates, then freshelection may be held with the rider that all the candidates who were in the

NOT JUST ANOTHER BUTTON ON THE EVM NOTA OPTION :EMPOWERING THE VOTERS

fray be barred from contesting in thenext election. Or maybe not bar allthe candidates but some of thecandidates who could not receive acertain percentage of the total votescast. With the country set to go infor Parliamentary election sometimein 2014, it is only right that somethoughts, serious ones at that, aregiven to electoral reforms. Are theprocesses under which electionsare held in sync with the tag of thelargest democracy in the world? Thevery fact that the Supreme Courthas deemed it fit to rule that anyelected members of Parliament orState Assemblies should bedisqualified if convicted by a Court,the directive issued to the ECI toinclude the NOTA button, are allindications that something needs tobe done to make elections moreclean and more fair. The NOTAdirective may not be without itspitfalls, for holding elections is nota joke, especially in the largestdemocracy in the world, with apopulation of over one billion people.But this cannot continue to be thereason to keep up with all the flawsthat one sees in the electoralsystem. The Supreme Court hashad its say. Political parties haveresponded with caution to the rulingof the Supreme Court. It is left to beseen how the ECI respond to thesituation and deal with the matter athand. Source: http://e-pao.net

9

January2014

Rally

NONE OF THE ABOVE (NOTA),

also known as “against all” or a “scratch”

vote, is a ballot option in some jurisdictions

or organizations, designed to allow the

voter to indicate disapproval of all of the

candidates in a voting system. It is based

on the principle that consent requires the

ability to withhold consent in an election,

just as they can by voting no on ballot

questions.

When None of the Above is listed on a

ballot, there is the possibility of NOTA

receiving a majority or plurality of the vote,

and so “winning” the election. In such a

case, a variety of formal procedures may

be invoked, including having the office

remain vacant, having the office filled by

appointment, re-opening nominations or

holding another election (in a body

operating under parliamentary procedure),

or it may have no effect whatsoever, as in

the state of Nevada, where the next highest

total wins regardless.

It’s not just one more button on your electronic voting machine.

For, the new gift of the Supreme Court may trigger changes thatcan make today’s smug politics so much endangered tribe in nearfuture.

Consider a scenario where most voters choose to press the none-of-the-above (NOTA) button in complete secrecy.

10

January2014

Rally

WITH A VIEW to bringing about purity in elections, theSupreme Court on Friday held that a voter could exercise theoption of negative voting and reject all candidates as unworthyof being elected. The voter could press the ‘None of the Above’(NOTA) button in the electronic voting machine.

The court directed the Election Commission to providethe NOTA button in the EVM.

“For democracy to survive, it is essential that thebest available men should be chosen … for propergovernance of the country. This can be best achievedthrough men of high moral and ethical values who winthe elections on a positive vote.” Thus the NOTA optionwould indeed compel political parties to nominate soundcandidates, said a Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam andJustices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, while allowing apetition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.

Writing the judgment, the CJI said: “Giving right to avoter not to vote for any candidate while protecting hisright of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy.Such an option gives the voter the right to express hisdisapproval of the kind of candidates being put up bythe parties. Gradually, there will be a systemic changeand the parties will be forced to accept the will of thepeople and field candidates who are known for theirintegrity.”

The Bench said the NOTA option “will accelerate effectivepolitical participation in the present state of the democraticsystem and the voters will in fact be empowered.” The rightto cast a negative vote, “at a time when electioneering is infull swing, will foster the purity of the electoral process andalso fulfil one of its objectives, namely, wide participation ofpeople.”

Not allowing a person to cast a negative vote would defeatthe very freedom of expression and the right to liberty, it said.

The Bench held that Election Conduct Rules 41(2) and(3) and 49-O of the Rules were ultra vires Section 128 of theRepresentation of the People Act and Article 19(1)(a) of theConstitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting.

‘None of the Above’ OPTION

IN EVMS WILL FORCE PARTIES TO FIELDCANDIDATES KNOWN FOR INTEGRITY

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/give-voters-right-to-cast-negative-vote-apex-court/article5174414.ece

THE ELECTION COMMISSION hasordered the Chief Electoral Officers of allStates and Union territories to provide for‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option in electronicvoting machines (EVMs) and ballot papers.

The option will be provided at the bottomof the panel on the EVMs or as the last row inthe ballot paper after all the candidates havebeen listed with their respective symbols in thesame language used to list the candidates.Likewise, the contours of the NOTA panel willbe identical to that given to each candidate.

In constituencies with 16 candidates in thefray, an extra EVM will be attached to the firstballoting unit for the NOTA option as the EVMscurrently in use can accommodate only 16rows. The NOTA votes will be counted andindicated in the final result chart.

The EC has clarified that in the extremecase of the NOTA option polling more votesthan any of the candidates in the fray, thecandidate who gets the maximum number ofvotes will be declared the winner.

The NOTA option was made mandatoryby the Supreme Court so that people who didnot want to vote for any of the candidates intheir respective constituencies had the optionof rejecting all of them without giving up theirright to a secret vote.Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/e lec t ion-commiss ion-okays -no ta-op t ion /article5231871.ece?ref=relatedNews

Election CommissionOKAYS NOTA OPTION

11

January2014

Rally

THE RECENT NOTA (none

of the above) order of the SupremeCourt makes for a hat trick of

decisions by the judiciary, striking ablow for electoral reforms. The

attempt to reverse one of them —to save MPs found guilty of offences

that would instantaneously unseatthem — was thwarted because of

public pressure and the President’sreported reluctance to sign the

Representation of the People(Amendment and Validation)

Ordinance. It is said that natureabhors vacuum. In the face of the

government’s reluctance to moveahead in bringing meaningful

electoral reforms, the courts havehad to intervene wherever they

could to give some push to thereforms and to restore the public’s

faith in the system.Government’s failure

The NOTA case is a classicexample of the government’s failure

to do the right thing at the right time.The Election Commission of India

(ECI) moved the Law Ministry in2001 for an amendment to the rules

to provide for a button in electronicvoting machines in order to protect

the identity and secrecy of a voterwho does not want to vote for any

candidate. That was the equivalentof the unmarked ballot paper of the

NOTA SMALL MATTER, THIS

The Supreme Court’s recognition of a negative voteas a constitutional right should be followed byacknowledging it as a rejection of all candidates

earlier era. The ECI received no response to the proposal for amending

the said rule, although the Minister in charge needed neither the UnionCabinet’s nod nor Parliament’s assent. In 2004, the then Chief Election

Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy, reiterated the proposal after christeningthe button as ‘none of the above’ but, for the first time, clearly articulating

that it was to “to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he choosesso.” By then, the PUCL had already moved the Supreme Court in the

matter. The case came up for hearing in 2009 but in the intervening yearsthe protagonists for the ‘no vote’ button had raised the pitch claiming for it

the attribute of ‘rejection’ of candidates which it is not, at least not yet.Presently, 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 and would have no

role in determining the winner.With EVMs, the ‘invalid vote’

category got eliminated asmistakes like wrong marking

and multiple marking becamea thing of the past. Now, with

this button that column willcome back to life.

If that be so, is it not aminor matter, a storm in a tea

cup? To answer it, one shouldlook closely at some pronouncements of the Supreme Court in this case.

It is worthwhile to note that by the time the matter came up in the SupremeCourt in 2009, the government had understood the potential of this button

to create a ‘negative’ impact in the short run, leading to the demand for aright to reject candidates and seek fresh elections.

The government, therefore, reacted strongly — it sought to get thepetition dismissed outright arguing that since the right to vote was not a

constitutional right but only a statutory right, the petition filed under Article32 was not maintainable and so should be thrown out. This led to further

delay in the disposal of the petition as it awaited the constitution of a largerbench. The Supreme Court verdict has arrived almost a decade after the

“Democracy is about choice.This choice can be betterexpressed by giving thevoters an opportunity toverbalise themselvesunreservedly and by imposingleast restrictions on theirability to make such a choice.”

12

January2014

Rally

petition was filed, in favour of theNOTA button but with far-reachingconsequences.Wider choice for voters

The reactions to this order havebeen varied. Some have chosen todescribe it “as a minor issue,”pointing out to the lack of action tocarry out comprehensive electoralreforms. Some have welcomed it asit may increase voter turnout, anaspect which the Supreme Courtjudges also pointed out. Some havefelt that it will make parties moreresponsible, which will nominatebetter candidates. The judgesthemselves pointed out that it canwiden participation and curbimpersonation. A careful reading ofthe judgment indicates that thejudges strove to make this happenthrough some deft side-steppingand innovative interpretation of pastjudgments of the Supreme Courtand provisions of the Constitution,on the nature of the right to vote,with the sole objective of giving thevoter a wider choice.

To quote from the verdict:“Democracy is about choice. Thischoice can be better expressed bygiving the voters an opportunity toverbalise themselves unreservedlyand by imposing least restrictions ontheir ability to make such a choice.”The Supreme Court was emphatic

that the no vote option “gives the voter the right to express hisdisapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up bythe political parties.” Going further, the judges declared that the“provision of negative voting would be in the interests of promotingdemocracy.”

This seemingly innocuous judgment to add a button to theEVM may sound very plebian but the skilfully worded order has

put a seal of approval on the distinction made between the right to vote,which it confirmed was a statutory right, and the act of exercising that rightby the casting of a vote which it confirmed as a constitutional right asenshrined in Article 19(1)(a), the right to freedom of speech and expression.It then a added a constitutional lustre to ‘negative voting’ by declaring “notallowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom ofexpression and the right ensured in Article 21, i.e., the right to liberty.”

The Supreme Court’s recognition of “negative voting” as aconstitutional right is by all means a giant step forward for the voter. Civilsociety has thus won an important and vital point. From here the nextlogical step will be one of raising the status of the button to that of “negativevote” with consequences, in other words a vote for ‘rejection’ of allcandidates, instead of its current status of merely being “no vote or negativevote.” This step would inevitably have to follow if political parties do notsee the writing on the wall and belie the expectation that NOTA “will indeedcompel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate,” as the SupremeCourt said.

If parties keep imposing tainted candidates on voters or, while selectingcandidates, pay scant regard to their performance or integrity, the electoratecan hit back with NOTA. A time will come with demands for fresh electionwith a fresh set of candidates if, in the first election, NOTA scores thehighest votes. If that happens, even if the lawmakers are reluctant, theSupreme Court may not be unsympathetic given the contours of thisjudgment. With 12 crore first time voters who will have NOTA before themin the coming election to Parliament, the stage is set for the electorate tochallenge political parties’ commitment to decriminalising the legislativebodies. A comprehensive electoral reform is the need of the hour but if thepolitical class keeps dragging its feet, courts may be willing to clean theAugean stables. For their part, those who moved the Supreme Court inthis matter and other civil society organisations would do well to educatevoters of the power the court has placed in their hands and let the buttonbeep louder and speak for them. NOTA will not remain a small matter forlong.

N. GopalaswamiSource: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/nota-small-matter-this/article5214816.ece?ref=relatedNews

13

January2014

Rally

BY ORDERING that voting machines in future shouldhave an additional provision for voters to record a ‘none-of-the-above’ (NOTA) option to reject all candidates in the fray,the Supreme Court has ushered in a key electoral reformthat has found favour in the past with the ElectionCommission of India and even the Law Commission. Theidea of according to a negative vote the same sanctity andsecrecy as a vote in favour of a particular candidate is indeedlaudable in a parliamentary democracy. Advocates ofelectoral reforms have encouraged voters to make greateruse of Rule 49-O, the provision by which one can record a‘no-vote’ option by signing a form in the presence of electionofficials, in the hope that a large number of such negativevotes would induce political parties to field candidates knownfor their integrity. The verdict holds that the rule violateselection law and the voters’ freedom of expression alike bydenying voters who exercise that choice the requiredsecrecy. The Court believes that the extra provision in thevoting machines would promote free and fair elections,ensure greater voter participation and reduce bogus voting.

In recent times, the Supreme Court has struck down aprovision to prevent immediate disqualification of convictedlegislators and, more controversially, barred those in custodyfrom contesting elections. The NOTA ruling fills a significantlacuna in electoral law, and is a welcome addition to theseries of decisions it has rendered to protect the integrity ofour elections. A doubt arises as to what will happen if a verylarge percentage of voters go in for the no-vote option. Evena meager turnout is considered good enough to declare avalid result now, but a heavy quantum of negative votesmay affect the legitimacy of the election process. Perhaps,the EC could fix a limit beyond which the percentage of NOTAvotes would entail re-polling. All this raises a question: whyhas Parliament left electoral reforms to the courts insteadof deliberating over and passing appropriate laws? Thanksto an assertive EC, the potential for irregularities by thepolitical class has been effectively kept under check, butthis inherently adversarial relationship may have preventedthe ushering in of sweeping reforms through legislation.There is no agreement on some reforms mooted by theElection Commission, such as making the framing ofcharges in serious criminal cases the basis fordisqualification instead of conviction. Ranging from the needto check money power and paid news to the need fortransparency in the funding of political parties, there are ahost of issues that ought to be addressed throughcomprehensive legislation rather than ad hoc adjudication.

Election Commission welcomes orderThe Election Commission on Friday welcomed the

Supreme Court order directing it to add “None of the Above”(NOTA) button in the EVM. The button will give voters theoption of not voting for any candidate. The secrecy of voterswho prefer that choice would be protected, the EC said.

Earlier, voters opting for the NOTA option — Rule 49(O) — did not enjoy secrecy as they had to record it byfilling up a form in front of the poll officials/election agents,EC sources said.

An official added: “But it is a delicate thing to implementthe SC verdict. The very purpose of constituting the EC is tohold polls and encourage voters to come and vote in largenumbers as part of democracy. So if we do vigorouscampaign for NOTA, the purpose will get defeated and thenthe candidates/people will think that the poll body is askingvoters not to vote. At the same time we cannot remain silentby not highlighting availability of the NOTA option to thevoters.”

An EC press release said the button would be availablebelow the name of the last candidate in the EVM and thenumber of voters who opt for it announced during declarationof results.

Asked what would happen if majority of the voters optfor NOTA, the official said in an election those getting themost number of votes would be declared elected.

Another ballot unit with the NOTA sticker would beadded if there were exactly 16 candidates in fray. Thisarrangement would be necessary since an EVM ballot unitcan accommodate only a maximum of 16 buttons.SC verdict: parties react cautiously, CPI(M) opposes

Political parties on Friday reacted cautiously to aSupreme Court verdict holding that citizens have the rightto reject candidates contesting polls with CPI(M) saying thatthe judgement has led to an “abnormal situation” that needsto be corrected.

Congress General Secretary Ajay Maken said thejudgement needs to be studied to see if the apex court hastaken all aspects like overwhelming number of negates votesinto account as reacting on the spur of the moment couldbe a little premature.

Implementation of the verdict will be difficult and it maycreate many problems, another party leader Rashid Alvi felt.

BJP vice president Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said, “We arein favour of electoral reforms. 25-30 years back we used tohave elections once in five years but now we have electionsevery four months in some state or the other.

YES TO THE NO-VOTE OPTION

14

January2014

Rally

“To say whether this decision is right or wrong nowwould be hasty. Anything can be said only after studying thejudgement,” he remarked.

However, CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury came outstrongly against the verdict, saying, “This is an abnormalsituation that needs to be corrected.

“Elections after all are the direct contribution of ourparliamentary democracy. Neither the judiciary nor theElection Commission participates in the elections. It is thepolitical parties which participate. Without even talking tothem deciding like this, it is not a good sign,” he said.

Former Lok Sabha Speaker Somanth Chatterjee alsoopposed the verdict, maintaining, “The Supreme Court hasgiven its judgement, I don’t think it is correct.”

Welcoming the judgment, BSP chief Mayawati said,“Babasaheb Ambedkar was also in favour of right to reject.”

In a landmark verdict, the apex court on Friday heldthat citizens have right to cast negative vote rejecting allcandidates contesting polls, a decision which wouldencourage people not satisfied with contestants to turn up

for voting.

WELCOMING the recent Supreme Court verdict on giving the voters the option of registering negative voting (noneof the above — NOTA), senior BJP leader L.K. Advani has said that the measure will be meaningful only if it is accompaniedby compulsory voting.

Writing on his blog, Mr. Advani said the Election Commission could convene a meeting of all political parties, afterproviding them, on the one hand, the text of the Supreme Court judgment, and on the other, a comprehensive report onthe laws and rules in 31 countries where such a provision existed in one form or another, to initiate a purposeful debate onthe issue.

BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has also advocated compulsory voting.Responding to the apex court verdict, he has said that a draft bill twice approved by the State Assembly for the introductionof compulsory voting in local bodies’ election is awaiting the assent of the Governor.

The Election Commission has set in motion the process of negative voting in the coming elections in five States.On his blog, Mr. Advani contended that as things stood, voters, who without any legitimate justification were not

exercising the valuable right of franchise the Constitution had conferred on them, had unwittingly thus been casting anegative vote against all contesting candidates without intending to do so.

Mr. Advani said there were as many as 31 countries whose laws provided for some kind of compulsory voting system,though details of these laws were such that observers felt that it was only one dozen of these that actually enforcedcompulsory voting by having deterrent provisions for citizens who failed to vote without any justified reason.

The Supreme Court judgment mentioned seven countries — France, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Chile, Bangladeshand Ukraine — and one State of the U.S. — Nevada — where the ballot paper given to voters or EVMs had the NOTAoption. “What I regard as significant is the fact that out of the seven countries that have given the electors the NOTAoption, the first five listed by me, namely, France, Belgium, Brazil, Greece and Chile, have compulsory voting also,” hesaid.

The BJP veteran noted that the remaining countries having some sort of compulsory voting arrangement were Austria,Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras,Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland (Province ofSchaffhausen), Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay.

ADVANI PITCHES FOR NOTA, COMPULSORY VOTING

Modi has also Advocated Compulsory Voting

Source:The Hindu, September 28, 2013

Source:The Hindu, October 6, 2013

15

January2014

Rally

JAMMU: A Congress minister said on Saturday the ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) voting option should not beapplied in Jammu and Kashmir as it would strengthen the separatist campaign in the state.

“The NOTA option for voting would only strengthen the hands of the separatists,” Medical educationminister Chowdhary Taj Mohiuddin said at an official function in Gandhi Nagar area of the winter capitalJammu.

“I have written a letter to the prime minister and the Congress high command that the option of NOTAshould not be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, as it would be used by separatists for their anti-electioncampaign,” he said.

Many leaders of the Congress-National Conference ruling coalition have been opposing the introductionof the NOTA voting option on electronic voting machines (EVMs) during the forthcoming Lok Sabha andthe state assembly elections to be held in 2014.

Senior separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani, whose house arrest restrictions were lifted by the authoritiesearlier this month, has been travelling to different parts of the valley as part of his anti-election campaign.

Geelani has been drawing large crowds at his public meetings. He said participation in the electionprocess gives legitimacy to Indian rule in Kashmir and asked people to stay away from it.

NEW DELHI: “None of the above” option, introduced by the Election Commission as per a Supreme Courtorder, made a rather modest debut in these assembly polls. Touted as a pioneering move to empower the voterto reject all candidates in a poll, NOTA polled just 0.63% of the valid votes in Delhi, followed by 1.9% in MadhyaPradesh and 1.92% in Rajasthan.

The option, however, was exercised on a wider scale in Chhattisgarh, particularly in the Naxal-affectedconstituencies. The turnout in favour of NOTA in the state was recorded at 3.07% of the total valid votes.

In absolute terms, 49,892 voters in Delhi pressed the NOTA button, as against 4,01,058 in Chhattisgarh,5,88,609 in Rajasthan and 6,43,144 in Madhya Pradesh.

In Rajasthan, Bagidora assembly constituency saw the highest number of voters - 7,259 — pressing theNOTA button. On the other hand, Kaman saw the lowest number of votes for NOTA - 352.

In Delhi, Sultanpur Majra assembly seat polled the highest NOTA votes (1,232) and Laxmi Nagar (251), thelowest. NOTA votes did not go beyond three digits in most constituencies. In fact, in RK Puram, AAP candidateShazia Ilmi lost by 326 votes, even as 528 voters settled for NOTA. This left many in AAP wondering if NOTAcost Ilmi the seat.

NOTA button secured the highest hits in Chhattisgarh’s Naxal-infested Chitrakot seat (10,848), while thelowest hits were recorded in Kota (1,074). Many extremism-hit constituencies such as Bijapur, Kanker, Narayanpur,Dantewada and Bastar saw anything between 5,000 to 10,000 voters opting for NOTA. Incidentally, Maoists andtheir supporters had been encouraging people in south Chhattisgarh to exercise NOTA option.

In many Chhattisgarh constituencies that recorded a close contest, NOTA votes exceeded the victory margin.In Madhya Pradesh, Junnardeo remained the assembly constituency with the highest votes to NOTA (9,412),

while the lowest votes were recorded in Mehgaon (217).This was the first time voters in India were given the right to exercise the NOTA option. The EC had moved

swiftly to implement the September 27 Supreme Court judgment directing it to introduce the option by addingNOTA button on the EVMs.

NOTA MAKES ITS DEBUT, BUT DOESN’T LEAVE MARKBharti Jain, Dec 9, 2013.

CONGRESS MINISTER IN KASHMIR OPPOSES NOTA

16

January2014

Rally

After Friday’s Supreme Court (SC)judgment on making the right to reject afundamental right, are political partieslikely to field better candidates?

The intentions of the judgment are good. But it isnot going to result in any substantial electoral reform.Also, it will not affect the selection of candidates bypolitical parties. The question of “None Of The Above”(NOTA) has for long been discussed by urbanintellectuals and civil society. Krishan Kant, former vice-president, was one of the earliest and strongest votariesof negative voting. Perhaps, I have been in a minorityfor having consistently held the view that this is moreof a fashionable suggestion. It emanates from armchairintellectuals.

First, elections are held to elect the representativesof the people. The process of NOTA goes contrary tothe electoral process of the country. In the currentclimate, where people say all the candidates are tainted,if the suggestion of NOTA is accepted by all the votersall over the country, then the result will be that no onewill get elected. This will make the electoral devicedysfunctional. Hence, it defeats the purpose of holdingelections. Also, it makesdemocracy impossible andwe may face a situation ofanarchy. However,fortunately, such a scenariois unlikely because it isinconceivable that a large

NOTA DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING ELECTIONS:SUBHASH KASHYAP

Constitutional expert and former Secretary-General of the Lok SabhaSubhash Kashyap, in an interview with Akshat Kaushal, says if the suggestionof “None of the above” (NOTA) is accepted by voters all over the country inthe current climate, where they say that all the candidates are tainted, thenthe result will be that no one will get elected. Edited excerpts:

number of voters will go for NOTA.In reality, most often, a large majority of voters are

actually taken to the polling booths. They are persuadedto vote on the basis of various kinds of temptations orunder threat. It is unlikely that a voter will stand in aqueue and then vote NOTA. They would rather stay athome. Also, even in the current system, a form can befilled with the returning officer if a voter wants to put onrecord that he wishes to vote for no one.But the filing of the form is criticisedbecause the identity of the voter isrevealed…

Yes, after the judgment, the secrecy of thecandidate will have to be maintained. However, theSupreme Court had earlier itself compromised onsecrecy when it ruled in the Kuldip Nayar case that inthe elections for the Council of States, electors will haveto show their vote to their political parties. Hence, theSupreme Court, has itself in one of its judgment, agreedto violate the principle of secrecy.Is it a fair comparison? There the largerprinciple was avoiding defection…

True. But if you have to reveal the vote, is it goingto be free? In the electionfor members of Council ofStates, the vote cannot becompletely free since theparty wants to see for whomyou have voted.

17

January2014

Rally

Your rejection of NOTA can be interpretedby a few as ignoring the intelligence of thevoter…

Studies have shown that voters are paid moneybefore the election, the sale of liquor increases, etc.Then, in spite of the election laws, voters are ferried tothe polling booth by political parties. Most often, votersend up voting for caste or community vote banks. Undersuch circumstances, it is naive to believe that voting isbased on ideology, principles or merit of the candidate.Those who think that this judgment is a historical event,don’t realise that we have around 1,500 political parties.In the Constitution Commission, a study was made ofParliament and state Assemblies and we found that onan average, 70 per cent of all those elected had morevotes cast against them, than for them. Can they becalled representatives of the people? The entire politicsworks on vote banks and if you have a committed votebank of 15 per cent, then you are 90 per cent sure ofwinning the election. So, why should anyone work formore than 15 per cent? There is not a single Lok Sabhaconstituency in the whole country where a single casteis in majority. But there are a large number ofconstituencies where a particular caste is more than15 per cent. So, how will you create this constituencyof more than 50 per cent?The Supreme Court and Parliament arecoming at loggerheads on various issues.Who is to blame?

It is not a question of loggerheads since both arenot meant to agree with each other. Parliament makeslaws, but it is for the courts to examine them. Both haveto remain within their jurisdictional limit, otherwise, aconflict arises. If the court starts taking over legislativework then, it is overreaching its powers.The government is likely to withdraw itsordinance that protected convicted MPsand MLAs. Will the withdrawal ensure less-criminalised politics?

No, it will not lead to any reduction in criminalisationof politics. The root of criminalisation is to understandhow political parties are funded. Therefore, to reduce

criminalisation, there is a need is for a change in thelaw that ensures that if no candidate gets more than50 per cent of votes, then next morning there shouldbe a re-poll between the first two candidates. In thebeginning, many re-polls may be necessary, but verysoon, political parties will realise that they have to appealto more than 50 per cent of people to get elected.Second, the cost of elections has to be reduced. I amnot in favour of state funding of elections, but theElection Commission of India should take theresponsibility of organising meetings, priniting posters,etc. However, the commission should not provide cashpayments as it can be misused.With each session, the disruptions in Parliamenthave increased. Vice-President Hamid Ansari wascriticised for saying the House was turning into a“federation of anarchy”. He, however, laterretracted.

Mr. Ansari’s remarks were casual and should notbe analysed. But unfortunately, the parliamentaryculture has undergone considerable transformation. Itis linked also to the composition of the House, theeffectiveness of the institution of Parliament and evento the role of media. The press usually ignores a goodspeech for theatrics by another member.To what extent is the present governmentat fault?

Ensuring proper functioning of the House is theresponsibility of the government. Jawaharlal Nehru wasthere in the House every day - and look at our currentprime minister. When the government is weak,Parliament cannot be strong. If the government isstable, it can stand a lot of criticism of itself.In the situation, as opinion polls have suggested,both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congressfail to get majority, who should the President callfirst to form the government?

Currently, there is no clarity on this issue. Itdepends on the President. In my opinion, the Presidentshould send a message to the House asking it to electits own leader. The elected leader should then beappointed as the prime minister.

18

January2014

Rally

TWO MONTHS AGO, on September 27, the Supreme Court laid theground for the citizen’s right to cast a negative vote, whereby you and I couldpress a none-of-the-above-button, snubbing all candidates contesting a poll.

This led to the obvious ‘what if’ mathematical possibility, i.e, what if NOTAwins? The underlying hope was that all political parties will fear NOTA and thenew enshrined button on the electronic voting machine (EVM), by the benchheaded by chief justice P Sathasivam, will a) shame netas from fielding a rogue,and b) an encore of shame when repolls will have to be held.

Optimism on both these counts emanated from initial reports that NOTAequals the right to reject! Alas, it is not. As the SC clarified Monday, if NOTA‘wins’, there won’t be a re-poll. In fact, nothing really would happen except thatthe candidate with the next highest votes will be deemed the winner!TWO CHEERS

After the September judgment, my chat with SY Quraishi, the chief electioncommissioner immediately before VS Sampath, gave me context which heauthorised me to share. Since 2001, the Election Commission (EC) has beenwaiting for a reply on their reference to the Union government to get an okay toinclude a ‘none of the above option’ in EVMs and ballot papers. The Governmenthas been sitting on this since the last 12 years. So, why didn’t you simply stopwaiting for government and just order a ‘none of the above’ option in EVMs, Ihad asked Quraishi. “We were like the man trying to cross the street who askedthe policeman whether he could. Obviously, the policeman said ‘no’ and wecouldn’t do anything because we had asked!” the former CEC answered, usingthe oft-repeated story on how Indian babudom penalises the upright.

That said, the spirit behind EC/SC was to foster purity and vibrancy ofelections. After all, the concept of negative voting in elections is prevalent in 13countries.

The idea was also to maintain a concept called “49(O)” in the present system.Under this rule in the Representation of People Act, a voter who after comingto a polling booth does not want to cast his or her vote has to inform the presidingofficer of his intention not to vote. The presiding officer in turn has to make anentry in the relevant rule book after taking the signature of the said elector.(Defacing the ballot paper is a crime). In its surveys to assess voter feedback,the EC too had found dissatisfaction among voters with the 49(O) facility. In fact,Quraishi found voters either simply stayed at home, negating his objective ofincreasing voter participation, or those who showed up looking for the 49(O)register were always in danger of being found out by bullies. The dispensationclearly bolstered unscrupulous elements and impersonators. 

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the civil rights group that haddragged the Union of India to the SC in this matter, therefore rightly argued thatRule 49(O) violates the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)(Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and violatedthe concept of secret ballot.

It is significant that the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of raisingnegative voting to the status of a fundamental right. “Not allowing a person to

SO, NOTA ISN’T THE GAME CHANGER;JUST A MIRROR FOR OUR NETAS, AT BEST

cast vote negatively,” the September 27order has said, “defeats the veryfreedom of expression and the rightensured in Article 21, that is, the rightto liberty.”

Elaborating the need for this right,the judges had said, “For democracyto survive, it is essential that the bestavailable men should be chosen aspeople’s representatives for propergovernance of the country. This can bebest achieved through men of highmoral and ethical values, who win theelections on a positive vote. Thus, in avibrant democracy, the voter must begiven an opportunity to choose noneof the above (NOTA)... which willindeed compel the political parties tonominate a sound candidate. Thissituation palpably tells us the dire needof negative voting.”HOPE ENDS

In a subsequent column, Quraishitherefore wrote, “The SC has stoppedshort of creating the right to reject,apparently because it was not in thepetition. But it has paved the way for it.It ’s t ime for the government andParliament to take the comprehensiveelectoral reforms forward, for the healthof our democracy. If they don’t, thecurrent momentum will peter out.”

On his part, J&K chief ministerOmar Abdullah made public his fearthat ‘right to reject’ will emboldenmilitant groups to herd negative votersinto the polling booth and embarrassIndia’s election process.

Abdullah’s specific problem haswon the day.

Our right to have a ‘right to reject’has lost out: NOTA will hold a mirror,but only for those netas and politicalparties who can be shamed easily.

Source:www.dnaindia.com

19

January2014

Rally

TILL NOW, this option is not available to voters onballot papers and EVMs. Voters so far had to registertheir option of NOTA in a register under Rule 49-O ofthe Conduct of Election Rules, thus compromisingsecrecy.

In its September 27, 2013 judgement, the SupremeCourt had directed the EC to provide the NOTA optionon ballot papers and EVMs.

The apex court had said that the EC shouldimplement it either in a phased manner or at a time inassistance with the central government.

Below the name of the last candidate on the EVMs,the EC will now provide a button for the NOTA optionfor electors who do not wish to vote for any of thecandidates in the fray in their constituency.

“The Commission is taking steps to bring this tothe knowledge of voters and all other stakeholders andto train all field level officials, including polling personnelabout the NOTA option,” Mr. Sampath said.

Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi had recently written anarticle about the NOTA option saying that such voteswill be counted as “no votes” and would not affect theresult of the poll.

“For democracy to survive, it is essential that thebest available men should be chosen as people’srepresentatives for proper governance of the country.

EC GIVES VOTERS RIGHT TO REJECT

Below the name of the last candidate on the EVMs,the EC will now provide a button for the ‘None Of TheAbove’ option.

This can be best achieved through men of high moraland ethical values, who win the elections on a positivevote.

“Thus in a vibrant democracy, the voter must begiven an opportunity to choose none of the abovebutton, which will indeed compel the political parties tonominate a sound candidate. This situation palpablytells us the dire need of negative voting,” the SupremeCourt bench had said.

Referring to another apex court judgement on fillingall columns in election affidavit, Mr. Sampath said nowit is obligatory for the Returning Officer (RO) to checkwhether the information required is fully furnished.

Now, if any of the columns is left blank by acandidate, the RO will issue him a notice to completethe affidavit. If the candidate fails to do so despite thenotice, his nomination paper is liable to be rejected atthe time of scrutiny.

In another first, the EC will now deploy ‘awarenessobservers’ who will oversee measures for voterfacilitation with a view to motivate voters and increaseturnout.

Awareness observers will be deployed in twophases of seven days each and will monitor steps beingtaken by the election machinery to bridge the gap inpeople’s participation in the electoral process.

It is people’s right – as a new option to reject allthe candidates so as to express the disapprovalwith the kind, character and competence of thecandidates in the fray. ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA)as approved by India, is also known as ‘againstall’ or ‘scratch’ vote option given by somejurisdiction–designed to allow the voter to stampor push a button to indicate rejection of thecandidates within the voting system. The votingsystem is so made to find out the majority or thepopularity of the candidate through an election.

In India – it is ‘NOTA’, in US State of Nevada(None of these candidates), Ukraine, Spain,Colombia, Russia, Bangladesh and evenPakistan had introduced this system toguarantee ‘the people’s right to reject thecandidate’ for strengthening democracy in truesense. It is based on the concept, ‘Nocandidates deserve my vote’ in the election –which may compel the government and thepolitical parties to revamp the system as wellas field the popular candidates.

Source:The Hindu, October 4, 2013

20

January2014

Rally

EMPHASISING that there is a “dire need ofnegative voting” in India’s electoral system to ensurethat a candidate wins only on the basis of “positivevotes,” the Supreme Court on Friday ordered theintroduction of a ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) buttonin voting machines to “empower” voters to reject allcandidates.Voters have the right to reject all candidates: SCIn a landmark judgment that aimed at ensuring widervoter participation and to “compel” political parties tofield “sound” candidates with “integrity”, the courtdirected the Election Commission to provide an optionfor negative voting in EVMs and ballot papers so thatvoters are “able to exercise their right not to vote whilemaintaining their right of secrecy”.Related: Modi backs ‘right to reject’ optionIt asked the EC to implement it at once or in a phasedmanner, with the assistance of the centralgovernment. Until now, a voter who did not want to

SUPREME COURT GIVES ELECTORS THE RIGHT TO REJECT,SAYS THERE’S DIRE NEED OF NEGATIVE VOTING

Courtesy : India Today· Unclear procedures if NOTA wins· Poor control over policies and decisions for NOTA· NOTA should be free from politics governed by Supreme Court.· The President of India should be elected by the Public rather the parties and should hold

supreme power.· A transparent functioning of government accessible to the public (apart from national secrets)

which brings the financial transactions open and audited by any public represented CA /Legal Body anytime.

· The overall maturity level of the Indian people is still a concern for implementing NOTA. Wehave people who just vote for money and without thinking. Same as politicians, many amongthe public are selfish when it comes to voting.

· India is not ready for handling the consequences of NOTA now! But we are decades behind tomake a NOTA win an election, so we can have it.

Overall Conclusion- THE REALITY:

WHERE NOTA LAGS?

choose any candidate could only register his or herdecision in a register outside the polling booth andsuch details were not kept secret.A bench led by Chief Justice P Sathasivam threwout the Centre’s objection which said theRepresentation of the People Act did not conceiveof a negative vote and that negative voting wouldhave no legal consequences since the candidategetting the highest number of votes would still bedeclared elected under existing election laws.“Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeatsthe very freedom of expression and the right ensuredin Article 21, i.e. the right to liberty...a provision ofnegative voting would be in the interest of promotingdemocracy as it would send clear signals to politicalparties and their candidates as to what the electoratethink about them. The mechanism of negative voting,thus, serves a very fundamental and essential partof a vibrant democracy,” it said.

21

January2014

Rally

RAIPUR: Exceptionally high number of people went for the NOTA option in Chhattisgarh as compared tothe four other states in the just-concluded assembly polls, raising questions if this has anything to do with theefforts of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) to encourage people to reject all candidatesparticipating in the democratic process.

In the 90 assembly segments, including in the Naxal-dominated areas of tribal Bastar, more than four lakhvoters, which is 3.15 per cent of the total valid votes polled in the two-phased assembly elections, opted forNOTA.

In constituencies of tribal Bastar region itself, NOTA polled 78,186 votes, with the highest 10, 848 inChitrakot-ST followed by 9, 677 in Dantewada-ST.

Similarly, in tribal areas of Sarguja in North Chhattisgarh, anaverage 5000 voters had preferred NOTA option in all theeight constituencies while in three constituencies of tribalJashpur the NOTA votes ranged from 4,000 to 5,500.

In Marwahi-ST constituency, from where former chief ministerAjit Jogi’s son Amit Jogi was in the fray, 7,115 voters exercised NOTAoption. Votes for NOTA were polled in all the 90 constituencies.

“In Maoist areas, it is likely that people preferred NOTA optionbecause of the directive by the Naxalites. Maoists can encouragepeople to opt for NOTA in every elections and can argue at somepoint of time in future that people in their areas of influence haverejected all candidates participating in the democraticprocess”, says former state election commissioner SushilTrivedi.

He attributed “first time excitement”, particularly amongthe new voters, as the reason for higher votes for NOTA in areasother than in Naxalite-affected regions as a section of youngergeneration could have felt that thrill of rejecting all the candidates in the fray. “Besides, there are also cynics inthe society who think that all the candidates are not worth”, he added.

Additional director general of police ( Naxalite Operations) Rajinder Kumar Vij told TOI “ As of now, wehave no inputs on whether the Maoists had directed or encouraged the people in the tribal areas to exercisetheir franchise on NOTA.”

Before the elections, there were reports that Maoists were conducting training camps with dummy EVMsin Bastar region to make the people aware about the NOTA option if at all they decide to go out to vote. Thesereports also quoted that the rebels were telling the people that it was best tool to protest against government’sexploitation.

However, Maoists had issued an appeal to the people to boycott elections but the rebels could not enforceit because of the unprecedented security arrangements.

Source: http://www.risingkashmir.com/nota-can-play-into-separatist-hands/

CHHATTISGARH RECORDS HIGHEST NOTA VOTES

22

January2014

Rally

New Delhi:  The “none of the above” (NOTA) option, which will be implemented in the upcoming

Delhi Assembly polls, will encourage voters to participate in the electoral process, a senior election officialsaid today.

“The NOTA option is a major step toward electoral reform and will strengthen our democratic set up. Itis distinctly different from the earlier option, Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, where the secrecy

of a voter was exposed,” Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer Vijay Dev told reporters.Under Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, voters were required to register their option of

NOTA in a register, thus compromising secrecy.“The strategic difference is that now the right to vote and right not to vote have been kept at the same

pedestal while maintaining secrecy. Under Rule 49-O, those who did not want to want vote, their secrecyused to get revealed and hence for that reason many people did not come out of home.

“If they feel that none of the candidate is eligible for your vote then you can use this option withoutgetting exposed and it will be electronically counted,” Mr Dev said.

He accepted that even after majority of votes under NOTA implying voters’ rejection of all candidates,winner will be selected on the basis of rest of votes.

“It is right that as on date the legal situation is that even after more than 50 per cent are cast underNOTA, candidate will be selected on the basis rest of the vote cast.

Following the “first past the post” principle, winner will be selected who has got maximum number ofvote,” Mr Dev said.

In its September 27 judgment, the Supreme Court directed the EC to provide NOTA option on ballotpapers and EVMs.

Below the name of the last candidate on the EVM, EC will now provide a button for NOTA option forvoters who do not wish to vote for any of the candidates in the fray in their constituency.

The voting percentage during the last two Delhi Assembly elections in 2003 and 2008 were 53.42 percent and 57.58 per cent respectively. The EC hopes that voting percentage will significantly go up in the

upcoming election due to NOTA option.

NOTA will put a holistic pressure on the politicians to perform on national interest andpublic will think more now about their choices. The democracy will become a truedemocracy of the people, for the people,  by the people someday for sure. This is one ofthe ideal way for a paradigm shift from the corrupt ruling and ineffective laws to a brightfuture. We need more awareness about NOTA and its consequences.

Greece, Ukraine, Spain, Colombia, the US state of Nevada and Bangladesh has NOTA.Russia had it and withdrawn it in 2008.  So you can relate where India or any other countrystands. 

My points are worth consideration for any country where the politics are played asdirty games, not only for India. Hope we groom to the next levels in Politics! 

- Words by Din

‘NOTA WILL MAKE CITIZENS PARTICIPATE IN ELECTORAL PROCESS’

Source: www.ndtv.com, October 25, 2013

23

January2014

Rally

The reaction of the political parties to the inclusion ofthe NOTA was not hard to gauge, keeping the newlyreleased data in mind. Dr. Sambit Patra, spokespersonfor the Delhi BJP said, “The inclusion of the NOTA is awelcome act. After a long time, something positive hasbeen added to the electoral purview.” The AAP, whichhas eaten into both the Congress and BJP vote share,was also of the same view. Ashwini Muralitharan, Mediacell coordinator of the AAP, said, “We welcome theNOTA and the Supreme Court has once again given agood judgment.” Meem Afzal, spokesperson for theCongress, said, “Earlier, a similar option was includedbut people were not interested in filling out a long formto express the same view. As a NOTA form, it hasbecome secret ballot, but it is nothing new.”Two primary factors are implicit in the inclusionof the NOTA in future elections.

· Firstly, this would lead to an increasedparticipation in the percentage of votingcitizens, a fact which the Supreme Courtpointed out as well.

· Secondly, large amount of NOTA votes wouldhypothetically serve as an ideological reminderto the political parties to field sound candidates.

People’s reaction to NOTA and its immediate electoralimpact varied. Retired Brig. NK Sharma, 85, a residentof Som Vihar, Central Delhi, said, “After a long time inIndia’s voting history, we can see changes in theelectoral reforms. The NOTA will definitely marshal anew era of voting as will be evident in the Delhielections.” Amay Yadav, first year student at Faculty of

A NOTA-ble Impact?Sanat Sinha

Law, Delhi University, counterpoised, “The NOTA is agood first step, but it will not get instant results. It needstime to creep into the system, down to the grassroots.It has to get ingrained into people’s minds.”The biggest problem with the NOTA is the outcomeof the so-called “negative voting”. The votesrecorded against this button will have the same fate asthe ‘invalid’ votes of the ballot paper era and would haveno role in determining the winner. The judgment isground-breaking, as recognition of “negative voting” asa constitutional right is by all means a giant step forwardfor the voter. However, it will not have much of an impacton the actual election results since negative voting willonly be recorded, not counted. Therefore, the button isnot actually “negative” in nature at all.Dr. Patra cited the same argument, “Until NOTA comesup as another counted option in itself, there is no pointeven if 60 percent of voters use this option. It will bean effective means provide people have the secondoption of ‘Right to Reject’ “.Nakul Varma, 20, a resident of Vasant Kunj, SouthDelhi, said, “The solution is to make people more aware.The NOTA is an easy way out. Instead, there shouldbe an improvement and sharing of information ofnominated candidates and their achievements. Toolslike the conventional media coupled with the use ofFacebook and Twitter will result in increasedcognizance.”Yadav also pointed out, “The presence of the NOTAwill have a larger impact in states where there are twomajor parties like in Madhya Pradesh. In Delhi, there isa big alternative in the AAP. The NOTA is new and needstime to take effect, and the changes will take time to bevisible and might not be so in the upcoming elections.”Clearly, the NOTA in its current form is an ineffectivetool to bring about any radical change in electoralreforms. However, for those people in a dilemma overvote choice in the upcoming elections, does theinclusion of NOTA mean that having no choice is still aquestion?

24

Source: http://www.boloji.com/

January2014

Rally

January2014

Rally