The Hindu Business Line : Electoral reforms and the right to reject

ON JUNE 10, 2004, when the people of the Netherlands vote in the European elections, the future of the European Union will be decided on how the voters use the "None of the Above" (blank) button. The demand for the inclusion of the "none of the above" option in India is yet to evolve into a voting choice that can have wide-reaching implications on adult suffrage. The demand is premised on the question: Can the right to vote mean the right not to choose any of the candidates and yet be counted?

The Constituent Assembly, in its wisdom, believed that the introduction of democratic government on the basis of adult suffrage would bring enlightenment and promote the well-being and raise the living standards of the common man. More than half a century later, serious concerns are being expressed over the effectiveness of adult suffrage as a means of empowerment and in the trust placed in it by the founding fathers.

Article 326 of the Constitution states that the elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to vote as a corollary of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The meaningful exercise of the right to vote would imply two interconnected aspects.

First, it implies the right to know about the contesting candidates. The Supreme Court recognised this in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) and in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003).

So also, the 170th Report of the Law Commission on Reform of Electoral Laws and the Report of the Vohra Committee on criminalisation of politics have equipped the elector with an informed choice. Candidates are now required to disclose criminal records, educational qualifications, and their assets and liabilities.

Second, the right to vote contains within it the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose is restricted, though, as the electorate has to choose from a list of given candidates, whether it wants them or not. Thus, the right to vote implies the right to freedom of information about the candidates and the electoral issues.

Accordingly, the right to know would be meaningless if the voters have no freedom to choose. A socio-political audit of this kind requires information about all issues and the freedom to choose.

What, then, would the voter do if he is not inclined to choose any of the candidates as his elected representative? Having the "none of the above" option in the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) assumes significance in this context. Where the voter is not satisfied with the candidates, he should have the option to indicate his displeasure with the choices available.

On its part, the Election Commission has recommended the inclusion of "none of the above" button in the EVMs. The proposal states that if more than 50 per cent of the voters opt for the "none of the above" choice, then, the election shall be cancelled. In the event of re-election, the earlier candidates will be barred from contesting and the "none of the above" option shall be removed for the sake of conclusiveness.

More often, the lack of choice has resulted in colossal voter apathy, expressed either in the form of invalid votes or by preferring not to go to the polling station. The voter turnout of just over 50 per cent in the first phase of the Lok Sabha Elections 2004 reflects this apathy. This should be a matter of grave concern for any democratic process which, by definition, has to be participative.

The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, does provide for situations where a person decides not to vote. Rule 49-O states that if a person decides not to record his vote, then the presiding officer shall make a remark to that effect against his name in the register of voters and obtain the latter's signature or thumb impression against such remark. But most presiding officers are unaware of this rule.

Moreover, the rule flagrantly violates the principle of secret ballot, the contravention of which is an offence punishable with three months imprisonment by Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The advantages of the "none of the above" option far outweigh the disadvantages. It may be argued that the inclusion of such an option will not bring about any desirable change, as the candidate with simple majority will be declared elected even if he gets less votes than the number of votes polled against the "none of the above" option.

Having the option is, in the long run, expected to filter out unworthy candidates and achieve fuller participation of the electorate in the poll process. When voters have the opportunity to show their dissent by casting their votes of disapproval, there will be less chance of such vices as impersonation and booth-capturing rearing their ugly heads.

The right to elect should encompass the right to reject a candidate. The concept of a negative vote is not unknown to law. The veto power exercised by the members of the Security Council, the vote of no-confidence in Parliament and issue-based referendums are instances where the exercise of a negative vote is recognised.

The inclusion of "none of the above" option will be a bold step towards making democracy more participative.

(The author is a Chennai-based advocate.)