Govt rejects negative voting as unrealistic

A marathon argument between the Centre and the Election Commission in the Supreme Court Wednesday on ‘negative voting’ concept may kick off a debate whether an electorate may use the option freely to reject all candidates in the fray after turning up to use its franchise at the polling booth.

The Election Commission whereas is in favour of introducing such provision, the government has disapproved amending the law to introduce a provision allowing an electorate to cast a negative vote during the polls.

•   E-mail Article
•   Printer Friendly
•   Text-Size    

Appearing before a Bench of Justice consisting B N Aggarwal and G S Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General Amarendra Sharan argued that right to vote was not a fundamental right but merely a statutory right. He said that as a voter has the right to vote, s/he also has the choice of refraining from voting by not turning up at the polling booth. But after appearing at the booth if one chooses to use secret ballot, the Centre said, the exercise would be expensive and unrealistic, too, to expect a reasonable percentage of voters mark their presence at the booth simply to say that they do not wish to vote for any candidates.

Contending the Centre’s argument, the counsel for the panel, Meenakshi Arora, said in the absence of such provision a disgruntled voter don’t use his franchise, which eventually leads to bogus voting through impersonation.

Moreover, after the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), a person could not keep his decision not to vote anyone a secret. He or she has to inform first the presiding officer about the decision not to vote which could be dangerous for the voter’s life as they become vulnerable to bullying and harassment by the candidates. The counsel said, earlier the voter had the choice of leaving the ballot blank.

Under the existing provisions of Sections 49(O) and 128 of the Representation of the People Act, if a voter after reaching a polling booth does not want to cast his vote has to inform the presiding officer of his intention not to vote. The latter then make an entry in the relevant rulebook after taking the signature of the said voter.

According to the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, who filed a PIL in this regard, the Section 49 (O) was violation of the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and violated the secret ballot concept. Moreover, PUCL was of the view that most of the people either do not know of such provision or if some knows could not dare to use it despite wanting.

The counsel informed the Supreme Court that the commission had written to the Centre on Dec 10, 2001 and July 5, 2004, recommending appropriate changes in laws and rules to provide for negative voting.

According to the Commission, it was for the Centre to make amendment in the provision of the Representation of Peoples Act as the EC has no right to bring any change in this regard.

Contradicting the PUCL argument, the Centre stated that the concept of secret ballot system was relevant only to the Presidential election involving Members of Parliament. Sharan asserted that the election of the President has to be held by means of secret ballot as per clause (3) of Article 55 of the Constitution, while there is no such necessity for elections to the state and Parliamentary elections.

The Centre urged the Court to dismiss the petition as there was no public interest in it filed by the PUCL. The argument would continue Thursday in the Supreme Court.