Give voters right to reject, SC tells Election Commission Read more

[sree45]

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Election Commission of India to include negative voting in all polls by permitting voters to select a “none of the above” option.

The SC directed that this option, called the NOTA (none of the above), be made available in ballot papers as well as in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The apex court bench of Chief Justice P.Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that negative voting would gradually lead to systemic changes as political parties will have to respect the will of the people in selecting their candidates. Pronouncing the judgment, Chief Justice Sathasivam said the mechanism of negative voting is a necessary and vibrant part of democracy. The ‘right to reject’ has long been sought by various groups as a key electoral reform. The 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. It had sought directions to Election Commission (EC) to make provision in the EVMs providing option “None of the Above” and the right to say NOTA should be kept secret. The SC reportedly said on Friday, in response to a petition seeking the right to reject all candidates in an election, that negative voting would foster purity and vibrancy in elections. It asked the central government to provide all assistance to the election commission in introducing NOTA option in the EVMs and ballot papers.

Read more at: Give voters right to reject all candidates, Supreme Court tells Election Commission | Firstpost

 

[chhota bheem]

Great judgement

 

[lightoftruth]

controversial decision but might push electoral reforms.

their is a lack of clarity over "right to reject" option, needs extensive discussion.

 

[AADHAAR]

I don't support it.

Courts are transgressing their mandate .... whether the actual thing useful or not is a separate issue.

I don't want the Courts to have a right to make "laws" by the whim and fancy of a particular judge.

Today, the courts mandate one thing .. and if accepted ... tomorrow they will use the accepted transgression of authority to prescribe something else .. e.g. Prime minister is required to have a clean shaven head to demonstrate cleanlines and honesty !!!!

Just a real example being transgression of their mandate a few days back, when a court telling the govt what is clearly a policy matter -- regarding direct transfer of subsidies to bank accounts (using Aadhaar).

Tomorrow, court will start telling the govt what is the amount of subsidy which must be paid ... heck, why doesn't the chief justice of supreme court also start managing the fiscal deficit and the budget.

They don't question why a "ration card" in not mandatory to obtain PDS foodgrains, then why do they oppose Aadhaar.

It isn't manadatory, but if you want a subsidy amount, govt needs to ensure that you are not claiming the subsidy multiple times using fake identities. It is govt right to prescribe the procedure. If you don't want govt subsidies, then don't enrol for Aadhaar. :shrug:

 

[IND151]

It will be very interesting to see if this option is available in 2014 elections

 

[The_Sidewinder]

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Election Commission of India to include negative voting in all polls by permitting voters to select a “none of the above” option.

The SC directed that this option, called the NOTA (none of the above), be made available in ballot papers as well as in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The apex court bench of Chief Justice P.Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that negative voting would gradually lead to systemic changes as political parties will have to respect the will of the people in selecting their candidates. Pronouncing the judgment, Chief Justice Sathasivam said the mechanism of negative voting is a necessary and vibrant part of democracy. The ‘right to reject’ has long been sought by various groups as a key electoral reform. The 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. It had sought directions to Election Commission (EC) to make provision in the EVMs providing option “None of the Above” and the right to say NOTA should be kept secret. The SC reportedly said on Friday, in response to a petition seeking the right to reject all candidates in an election, that negative voting would foster purity and vibrancy in elections. It asked the central government to provide all assistance to the election commission in introducing NOTA option in the EVMs and ballot papers.

Read more at: Give voters right to reject all candidates, Supreme Court tells Election Commission | Firstpost

Heard the news. Its all over facebook. Not sure if its ever gona open eyes of our political regime.
Who knows now these parties will pass new legislation to overturn this decision to protect their interests.

 

[sree45]

Someone said that if people who vote for NOTA are in the majority(i.e. more number of votes than the winner), Then all the candidates will be DisQualifieded from contesting elections in that area.

 

[Dash]

I don't support it.

Courts are transgressing their mandate .... whether the actual thing useful or not is a separate issue.

I don't want the Courts to have a right to make "laws" by the whim and fancy of a particular judge.

Result of misinformation...The court didnt make a new law here. It just rephrased the use of the old one.

1. Right to reject was there before but was open, however it will be conducted in secret ballet.
2. Its the same law that the parliamentarians enjoy called as 'abstaining' when they don't want to participate in any casting in the house.

So in a precise way the Apex court of India has made teh same law available to its citizens which was only available to MPs/MLAs and dogs..

Someone said that if people who vote for NOTA are in the majority(i.e. more number of votes than the winner), Then all the candidates will be DisQualifieded from contesting elections in that area.

Thats true. Its already there in place..