The petition said that candidates “rejected” by voters should not be included in the new polls again.
On Monday, the Supreme Court asked the Center and the Election Commission of India to respond to a request for new elections to be held in constituencies where the maximum number of votes is NOTE.
The petition said that candidates “rejected” by voters should not be included in the new polls again.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India, Sharad A. Bobde, initially expressed doubts about the viability of lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s petition to arm the electorate with the “right to rejection” and to push political parties. to present voters with a better choice of candidates. to choose.
Chief Justice Bobde said that if voters continued to reject candidates, Parliament / Assembly seats would remain vacant, affecting the legislative functioning.
“It is a constitutional problem. If your argument is accepted and there is a certain number of NOTE then the constituency will not be represented in Parliament … How will Parliament then function? “Chief Justice Bobde asked Senior Defender Menaka Guruswamy, who represented Mr. Upadhyay.
But Ms Guruswamy responded that “if voters have the power to reject, political parties will take care to present worthy candidates first …”
The petition noted how the parties spent millions of rupees on the candidates.
The CJI also raised the question during the hearing as to whether a political party could influence voters not to vote in a particular constituency.
However, Ms Guruswamy prevailed, prompting the court to agree to examine the issue raised in the petition.
“The political parties elect the candidates in dispute in a very undemocratic way without consulting the voters. That is why many times the people in the electoral district are totally unhappy with the candidates that are presented to them. This problem can be solved by holding a new election if the maximum number of votes in favor of NOTE is obtained. In such a situation, the contending candidates should be considered rejected and not be admitted in new elections, ”the petition says.
Ms. Guruswamy argued that the right to reject and elect a new candidate would empower the people to express their discontent.
The lead counsel said that the “right to refuse” was first proposed by the Legal Commission in its 170th Report in 1999. Similarly, the Electoral Commission had twice endorsed the “right to refuse.”
Likewise, the ‘Background Document on Electoral Reforms’ prepared by the Ministry of Law in 2010 had proposed that if a certain percentage of the votes were negative, the result of the election should be annulled and a new election should be held.
.
