The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response on a suggestion to have unopposed candidates in an election secure a minimum threshold of votes to be elected to Parliament and state assemblies, observing that nobody should be allowed to enter the legislature by default when a win by majority forms the foundation of our democracy.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy which posed a hypothetical situation where a candidate elected unopposed is able to enter Parliament or Assembly, as the case may be, defeating the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of none of the above (NOTA), which the court has secured in its past judgments.
A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, “Why should we allow anyone to enter Parliament by default, who is not able to get even 5% of the votes in a constituency? ” The court agreed that it is a hypothetical situation as the Election Commission informed the court that there were only nine such instances since the passage of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar differed and said there were 26 instances in parliamentary polls since 1952 . He added that the issue raised seeks to address a problem that may arise in future for which the EC and the Centre should be prepared.
The bench, also comprising justice N Kotiswar Singh, said, “We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised. Keeping the growing trend and dimensions in political field, there is a possibility of some affluent candidate getting elected unopposed when those who are contesting withdraw. Voters may suddenly realise they have no choice, and they cannot oppose as he will be elected. In such a situation, both EC and the voters are helpless.”
The court proposed to the Centre that it could have a committee of experts, perhaps with some Parliamentarians included, deliberate on the issue and come out with some benchmark, that 5% or 10% or 15% voters should vote for the candidate.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for EC found the suggestion impractical as elections cannot be held for a single candidate. “It is impractical. We implemented NOTA judgment as it was not difficult to manage. Our experience has shown even NOTA is a failed experience as the winning candidate is never impacted.”
The bench told Dwivedi, “Ours is the most dynamic Constitution when it comes to democracy. When we talk of majority as the foundation stone of democracy, why not we propose that even in a default election, there is a simple majority that votes for you? Is it not progressive? If there is one candidate, you can say he must get at least 15- 20% votes.”
Attorney General R Venkatramani appearing for the Centre told the court that the issue may require consultation with stakeholders, including states. The court said that it was not proposing to strike down the existing provision but only add a proviso to it.
Dwivedi supported AG’s view and said, adding a proviso too will be an exercise that Parliament undertakes.
The court granted four weeks for the Centre to respond to the PIL while posting the matter in July for further consideration.