CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Presented By:SANJAY SAH

SEM-IINEW LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

People’s Union for Civil Liberties

Vs.Union of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PETITIONER:

People’s Union for CivilLiberties

RESPONDENT:

Union Of India

Vs.

Judge P. SATHASIVAM

(RANJANA PRAKASH

FACTSThe People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) had moved the apex court in 2004 with a plea that voters should have a right to negative vote, saying that it does not want to vote any of the candidates listed in EVM.

Writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that these provisions violate the secrecy of voting.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether NOTA should be added to the

EVMs and ballot papers or not ?

Whether negative voting is necessary or

not ?

Whether absence of negative voting

violates the Freedom of Expression ?

ARGUMENTSRules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right of a voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is not aintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extent of such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to the said Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Prior to NOTA still their was a concept available to the voters not to choose among the mentioned candidates. But in that condition his vote is considered to be rejected. In previous time election commission observed a essence need to introduce a system for the voters by which they can choose non of the candidates and along with this their would also not need to be rejected.

JUDGEMENTA milestone in Indian Constitutional Law after decades -Chief Justice Sathasivam said the mechanism of negative voting is necessary and vibrant part of democracy. The court directed the election commission to introduce a button providing for NOTA (none of the above) in the EVMs and also in the ballot papers.

The Court struck down the constitutionality of Rules 41(2), 41(3) and 49(O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (Rules) as violates of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The Apex Court directed the central government to provide allassistance to the election commission in introducing NOTA option in the EVMs and ballot papers. Besides, court also directed the Election Commission to undertake awareness programmes to educate the masses.

CONCLUSIONThe Supreme

Court of India has

delivered this historic judgment

declaring that Indian Voters

have a Constitutional

right to reject all of the Contesting

Candidates if voters believe

that none of the Contesting

Candidates is eligible to

represent them in concerned Legislative

House.

India has just started a new

blossoming in an advance stage of

refinedDemocracy. People

will be happy to turn-

out in huge numbers to polling

booths to give shock and dismay

to Corrupt, notorius and

antidemocraticPolitical Parties.