NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday wondered why should somebody be allowed to enter the Parliament, in default without contest after not even getting minimum percentage of votes.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the Constitution stated India is a democracy of majority and suggested that in furtherance of achieving the goal, if there is a provision, where more than one candidate file nominations and when the others withdraw at the last moment, then at least, “10%, 15% and 25%, voters’ will be required to vote” for a candidate to win.
A PIL by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy challenged Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, which provided for direct election of candidates in uncontested polls.
The Election Commission said there are only nine instances where elections were uncontested.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission said in the last 30 years, there had been only one case where the election was uncontested.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar for the petitioner, contended that in Arunachal Pradesh, out of 60 candidates, 10 were single candidates and they were unopposed.
Datar said in a constituency there are three or four people, and on the last day they withdraw their nomination and only one person is left.
The bench said that it would be a good reform and would not cause inconvenience to anyone.
“We have seen the data: there are nine instances and after 1991, there is only one instance (in parliamentary election),” the bench said.
The bench said there is a possibility that some affluent candidate, maybe by pressurizing, maybe by influencing, or persuading, whatever may happen, and in the end there is only one candidate.
“Suddenly, the voters’ know that there is no other choice except one person. Voters’ will not get a chance to react because he will get elected unopposed. The present statutory scheme is like that. You will also have to declare it. NOTA (none of the above), has been accepted by you, here you are helpless and so are voters," the court told the EC.
The bench said our democratic system has addressed every challenge, but you can enact something visualising this problem.
"You may say why should we allow someone to enter Parliament, by default, who is not even to get 5% votes. You may think of that because you are representing the will of the people and the entire constituency….it is only enabling provision you may think of,” the bench said.
Dwivedi said the NOTA is a failed idea. It is creating no impact on the elections, winning candidates are never impacted by it.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, said he agreed to submission made by the EC.
The bench said that the Centre could constitute a small expert body and they can examine it.
The bench said there is no necessity of argument that Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, should be struck down and the provision will remain the same and they can add one enabling proviso under it that the candidate would have to secure either 10% or 15% votes.
To the suggestion, AG said it will involve multiple stakeholders including political parties.
The court said it understands that the Centre would have to consult the state governments’, as similar provisions would be required at the state level.
The court gave the Centre time to file its reply, and put the matter for further hearing in July.
