Special: Power to reject them all

Kochi: The political class cutting across ideological barriers remained guarded in their reaction to the historic verdict of the Supreme Court granting the right to citizens to cast a negative vote in the polls while the general public supported the decision in an overwhelming manner. Most people felt that the decision of the apex court would compel political parties to select persons with an impeccable track record as they would fear a negative reaction from the public. Former Maoist leader and political commentator K. Venu has welcomed the apex court’s decision to empower citizens with the right to reject candidates and described it as a positive step towards making the election process more participatory. “The decision will help raise the voting percentage by giving an option to those, who otherwise boycott the entire election process, to mark their presence in the country’s democratic system. Similarly, it will also improve the citizen’s control over political parties, forcing them to show an added sense of responsibility towards voters”, Venu said. He, however, added that there was a need to assess the practical implications of the rule before enforcing it. “Negative voting, for long, had been a major point of debate in the country but we are yet to gauge its full impact over the democratic process. But in any case, it serves as a warning bell for political parties as far as the fielding of candidates are concerned”, he held. “The decision of the Supreme Court has to be welcomed on the ground that it has made youngsters like us aware about such a right that exists under the people’s representative act”, said Raniyal Niyada, a third semester student of law at the government Law College, Kozhikode. “I hope the decision will help in cleansing the political system as the voters are now empowered to reject the candidates found to be corrupt or inefficient”, she added. Nalini Netto Chief Electoral Officer said that the electronic voting machines could be equipped with the negative voting facility without much of a problem. “The facility can be configured in the existing EVMs without much difficulty”, she said. “The exuberance shown by the people about the SC verdict is a reflection of the revulsion of the ordinary folks towards mainstream politics”, said Adv Thushar Nirmal Saradhy, a human rights activist based in Kochi. But he said that the decision was unlikely to make much of a difference as the electoral system was dominated by a huge amount of money power. “Even conservative estimates show that the Indian parliamentary election is a huge industry worth Rs 50,000 crore and much of it is spent on swaying public opinion by raising issues having no relevance to the life of ordinary folks”, he said. Justice K.T. Thomas, former judge of the Supreme Court declined to offer a comment saying that “only after studying the judgment an opinion can be made”. “We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. In fact, the right to reject candidates has been included as the second point in the agenda of our party. The decision will force all political parties to field candidates who are clean and efficient”. K.P. Ratheesh, Aam Admi Party, Kerala spokesperson, said. Vishak S. Kumar, studying MCA at St Gitts College of Engineering, near Kottayam told DC that the verdict had the potential to change the corruption ridden political apparatus of the country. Although ordinary folks welcomed the decision wholeheartedly, a few pointed out the pitfalls inherent in negative voting. A major problem with negative voting is that if the number of votes cast rejecting all the candidates is more than what the candidates polled then the election will have to be annulled and that would make the entire electoral process a meaningless exercise. No electoral democracy can afford to have such a system as the very purpose of election is to choose from the available candidates. Next: What is section 49(O) What is section 49(O) Is the SC verdict on negative voting amounts to much ado about nothing A close look at the section 49 (O) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 reveals that the section grand the right for the voter to cast a negative vote. According to the section if an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under the law, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature and or thumb impression of the electors shall be obtained against such remark. The problem with the existing system of taking a form and filling up it with negative vote is that majority of voters are not even aware of such a provision. Even if they are aware, most persons will not dare to exercise such an option as a person collecting such a form could be easily identified. The introduction of a button in the EVM will equip the voter with the power to exercise the option without the fear of being identified by any. Next: ‘A guarantee to freedom of speech and expression’ ‘A guarantee to freedom of speech and expression’ N.R. Madhava Menon Look at it from the freedom of choice of the voter and the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The court naturally resolved that it would extend to expressing a negative vote as well. So that is the way it is decided by the court. It was not a case for electoral reforms but when the court resolved that freedom of expression extends to negative vote, it will have implications in the way the elections are organized in the country. That is why the court gave the relief by asking Election Commission to give the choice to the voter for negative expression as well. It amplifies the scope of freedom of speech and expression. There was already a lot of support for negative vote. Therefore it is to be welcomed by political parties. But what will be the implication is a different question and one can only speculate on that. There have been reports by expert committees during the last 60 years on electoral reforms. But when it comes to reforming The Representation of the People Act 1951, political parties had a lukewarm approach. So the verdict has come at the right time. One may ask what will happen if all votes are negative, though that may not happen. But even if that happens, then political parties will be compelled to offer other choices to voters. Recently Supreme Court came out with the landmark decision barring members of Parliament or assemblies from retaining their membership of the legislature if convicted for an offence having a jail term of at least two years. (The ordinance, which Rahul Gandhi junked, is against this) We have been talking about criminals in politics for quite some time now. But nothing substantial happened. So this is a welcome development and has to be explained in terms of free and fair polls. What does that mean If it has to be fair, then there should be a choice for the voter for a negative vote. Otherwise you are not fair to the voter. The educated people will understand the negative vote, it is illiterate population or the so called vote bank that will have to be made aware and educated on this aspect. Despite mixed reactions from political parties, the negative vote decision is binding as the law of the land unless it is overturned by legislation. A section of political parties is saying such issues ought to have been discussed in Parliament. “Who prevented them from debating Why have they not done it so far But their view that the apex court should have issued notices to the political parties is a just demand. After all they are representing the people. Even now they can go for a review petition and express their views on the issue before the court. The positive side is that the political parties, fearing negative votes, will now be under pressure to field clean candidates. - The writer is International Bar Association Chair Professor on Continuing Legal Education at the National Law School, Bengaluru.