The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the need to strengthen democratic participation in India. It observed that authorities should devise a suitable mechanism to encourage compulsory voting. However, the bench clarified that such a mechanism need not necessarily involve penalties.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks during a brief hearing. The court examined broader concerns about voter turnout and the relevance of the NOTA option.
Bench Questions Effectiveness of NOTA
The judges reflected on the purpose behind introducing NOTA in 2013. They noted that the option aimed to incentivise political parties to field better candidates. Moreover, it sought to encourage greater voter participation in elections.
However, the bench observed that a decade of data reveals limited usage of NOTA. According to the court, only a minuscule share of the electorate has exercised this option. Consequently, the judges questioned whether NOTA has achieved its intended impact.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked during the hearing whether the quality of elected leaders improved because of NOTA. He further stated that NOTA cannot function as an entity. Even if it secures the highest votes, it cannot fill a seat in the legislature.
PIL Challenges Clause in RP Act
The court heard a public interest litigation challenging a clause in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner argued that the provision restricts voters from exercising NOTA when only one candidate contests an election.
Therefore, the plea sought to make NOTA compulsory in all elections, including those involving a sole candidate. The petitioner contended that voters must retain the right to reject candidates in every scenario.
NOTA, or “None of the Above,” entered India’s electoral system following a landmark verdict in 2013. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to incorporate the option into electronic voting machines.
Court Stresses Democratic Responsibility
During the proceedings, the bench also expressed concern over voter turnout patterns. It noted a developing trend in which educated and well-off voters participate less frequently in elections.
In contrast, the court observed that uneducated voters and women often demonstrate stronger participation. Consequently, the judges highlighted the need to motivate broader civic engagement across demographics.
The court indicated that compulsory voting, if structured carefully, could strengthen democratic foundations. However, it refrained from prescribing specific legislative measures at this stage.
Attorney General’s Submission
Attorney General R Venktaramani addressed the court during the hearing. He emphasised that the judiciary should not decide what amendments Parliament must carry out. According to him, Parliament retains authority to determine whether deficiencies exist in the Representation of the People Act. Furthermore, it must assess whether amendments are necessary to remedy any gaps.
The court acknowledged this position while continuing to deliberate on the issues raised. It did not pass any immediate directions during the hearing. The bench has now fixed the matter for further hearing on March 17. During the next session, the court may examine additional arguments from all parties.
Meanwhile, the remarks made on Tuesday have sparked renewed discussion on electoral reforms. Observers note that compulsory voting debates have surfaced periodically in India. However, lawmakers have yet to adopt such measures formally. The Supreme Court’s observations underline the broader objective of enhancing democratic participation. At the same time, the court recognised the importance of respecting legislative prerogatives. Ultimately, the upcoming hearing will determine the direction of this PIL. For now, the court has signalled that voter participation deserves deeper consideration.
