None Of The Above (NOTA)

In News

The Supreme Court of India sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) whether it would be legally permissible to reject all candidates in the fray if NOTA votes exceeded that of the candidate securing the highest number of votes.

About

• NOTA meaning ‘None of the Above’ options has been an integral part of the Indian voting system for the past eight years.
• This enables the voter to officially register a vote of rejection for all candidates who are contesting an election. If a voter chooses to press NOTA on the EVM, it indicates that the voter has not chosen to vote for any party.
• The Supreme Court of India on September 27, 2013, ruled that the right to register a ‘none of the above’ vote in elections should apply while ordering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a button for the same in the electronic voting machines.
• The NOTA option was first used in the 2013 assembly elections held in four states — Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory, Delhi. More than 15 lakh people exercised the option in the state polls.

Objectives

• To enable electors who do not wish to vote for any of the candidates to exercise their right to reject without violation of the secrecy of their decision.
• The voter must be eligible to register a vote of rejection if they feel that the contesting candidates do not deserve to be voted for.
• The Right to vote granted to all citizens must allow the vote of disapproval.

Which other countries allow NOTA?

• Colombia, Ukraine, Brazil, Bangladesh, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Chile, France, Belgium and Greece allow their voters to cast NOTA votes. The US also allows it in a few cases. The state of Texas in the US permits the provision since 1975. The option, however, has faced opposition there

Similar Provision Before NOTA

• Before NOTA came into existence, there was Section 49 (O).
• Under Section 49 (O) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, a voter could enter his electoral serial number in Form 17A and cast a negative vote.
• The presiding officer would then put a remark in the form and get it signed by the voter. This was done to prevent fraud or misuse of votes.
• This provision was deemed unconstitutional by the SC as it did not protect the identity of the voter.
• Under it, the poll officials got a chance to find out the reason behind the rejection of a candidate through the voter’s remarks in Form 17A.
• Under NOTA, the officials cannot find out the reason and the identity of the voter is also protected.

Source :TOI