Both question and answer, are very simple but the process is appeared to be toughest for ensuing 16th Loksabha poll in India. The issue is transparent voting and to achieve highest ever turn out, if not 100 percent. Yes, it took 62 years for us to understand, unless the voting option covers all possible preferences of electorates, the dream of democratically elected government is impractical.

 Unfortunately, the biggest democratic country of the world – India has not yet able to obtain the decision of more than 60% people for forming a government in last 15 elections. In 16^th general election, it indeed emerged as biggest challenge for Indians to install a government by taking the opinion of each and every eligible citizen.    

It is a story of 1999; when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost elections in late November in Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The states have been BJP’s strongholds and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was heading a coalition government at the centre. But after the setback of BJP in assembly polls the issues of electoral and political reform in India occupied a larger space. Critics term it, as BJP Bites the Dust. Leading Indian columnist Praful Bidwai in those days’ observed, negative votes can only be a punishment for misgovernment and base erosion.

       At nascent stage of such reform ideas had attained maturity by a group of professors from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad. They filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with Delhi High Court from a new born public advocacy body Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). They were demanding for the disclosure of the criminal, financial and educational background of the candidates contesting elections. Based on this, the Supreme Court in 2002, and subsequently in 2003, made it mandatory for all candidates contesting elections to disclose criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls by filing an affidavit with the Election Commission. ADR conducted the first election watch in 2002 for Gujarat Assembly Elections whereby detailed analysis of the backgrounds of candidates contesting elections was provided to the electorate in order to help the electorate make an informed choice during polls.

          At the initial stage of Election Watch activities, ADR argued the most common issue that voting is a formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue in question and that right to vote means right to exercise the right in favour of or against the motion or resolution. Such a right implies right to remain neutral as well. This may happen when a voter feels that none of the candidate in a candidacy deserves to be elected. It happens by the way of his choice, belief, thinking and expression. Right to reject has its genus in freedom of speech and expression. While saying so, it is needed to be mentioned that in Indian election, refuse to vote has been exist since beginning under Conduct of Election Rules 1961. But form of refusal was different where Right to Secrecy was not taken care of.

        Under Rule 41 (2) if an elector after obtaining a ballot paper decides not to use it, he shall return it to the presiding officer, and the ballot paper so returned and the counterfoil of such ballot paper had been marked as "Returned: cancelled" by the presiding officer. Under Rule 41(3), all ballot papers cancelled had to be kept in a separate packet. And finally, under Rule 49(O), after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decide not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark. These three major rules of refusal of voting could not provide secrecy to a voter, though it is recognized as fundamental rights of a citizen.

Presently, Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49(O) of the Rules stand ultra vires Section 128 of the Representation of People’s Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting. Instead, following the direction of the apex court, Election Commission has introduced NOTA (None of the above) in Indian Electronic Voting Machines’ (EVMs) last year. Introduction of NOTA buttons on the EVMs is based on the central elements of sovereignty and democracy of our country.

It was observed on the day of poll; mostly the urban people abstain from voting on the ground that the contestant candidates in a particular constituency are not in their choice. There were n number of reasons for them of being absent in voting like age to education to personality to character what not. Since, there was only option left for a voter to accept one of the contestants either or to go for pursues Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49(O), which easily could identify the voter, many of the people away from the exercise their choice. Now, after introduction of NOTA in EVM has offered an opportunity to a voter to reject the contestants by voting. So, expectation for 100 percent voting in 1^st general election after inception of NOTA in India is not at all unjustified rather complementary to the democracy.  

Votes cast for NOTA option is to be counted but not to be a determinant for the election result. Even if NOTA get 80 percent of total casting, the existing system can’t declare NOTA as winner. The tag of winner is to be given to the candidate of a political party who highest vote beyond NOTA. However, ADR and National Election Watch have been contemplating for poll result determinant status for NOTA. In case the ‘none-of-the-above’ option gets more votes than any of the candidates, NOTA should be declared elected and a fresh election to b held in which none of the candidates in this election are allowed to contest. Moreover, in the following elections, only that candidate should be declared elected who gets at least 50 percent + one of the votes cast. If even in this round, NOTA gets the highest number of votes cast or none of the candidate gets at least 50 percent + one of the votes cast, then the process should be repeated. This may appear to be a cumbersome and tedious process but it will nudge the entire system in the direction of (a) better representativeness among the elected representatives by reducing the sectarian effects of vote banks, and encouraging political parties to put up better candidates.

So, 16^th Loksabha is an acid test of the will of Indian electorates. Also it reminds the famous quote of Felix Frankfurter, “No Office in this land is more important than that of being a citizen”.

To send your appreciation and comments pl. post it online below  or  send email to editor@tripurainfoway.com or tripurainfoway@gmail.com