{"id":46394,"date":"2025-04-28T02:30:21","date_gmt":"2025-04-27T21:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=46394"},"modified":"2025-05-17T21:48:24","modified_gmt":"2025-05-17T16:18:24","slug":"supreme-court-suggests-minimum-vote-requirement-for-unopposed-election-wins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/supreme-court-suggests-minimum-vote-requirement-for-unopposed-election-wins\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Suggests Minimum Vote Requirement for Unopposed Election Wins"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>What\u2019s in Today\u2019s Article?<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Supreme Court on Unopposed Elections Latest News<\/li>\n<li>Background &#8211; Petition and Argument<\/li>\n<li>Uncontested Elections in Lok Sabha<\/li>\n<li>Response of the Election Commission of India (ECI)<\/li>\n<li>View of the Supreme Court<\/li>\n<li>Supreme Court on Unopposed Elections FAQs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Supreme Court on Unopposed Elections Latest News<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The Supreme Court recently suggested that if there is only one candidate in an election, they should be required to secure a minimum prescribed vote share to be declared elected, rather than winning automatically without a poll.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which challenged the constitutionality of <strong>Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/strong>. This section currently allows a sole candidate to be declared elected without an election.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Background &#8211; Petition and Argument<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The petition was filed in August 2024.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>It argues that if an election is not held when there is only one candidate, voters lose the chance to choose the &#8220;None of the Above&#8221; (NOTA) option.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>This, the petition says, violates the fundamental rights of voters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Reference to Supreme Court Judgment<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The petition cites the Supreme Court\u2019s 2013 judgment in People\u2019s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India.<\/li>\n<li>In this judgment, the Court recognized the right to cast a negative vote (NOTA) as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Core Argument<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>It argues that the right to express disapproval through NOTA should be available regardless of the number of candidates contesting the election.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Uncontested Elections in Lok Sabha<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The petition states that between 1951 and 2024, candidates were elected uncontested in 26 Lok Sabha constituencies, based on Election Commission of India reports.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>As a result, over 82 lakh voters were deprived of their right to vote.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Breakup of Uncontested Elections<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>According to the petition, uncontested elections occurred as follows: seven in 1957, five each in 1951 and 1967, three in 1962, two in 1977, and one each in 1971, 1980, 1989, and 2024.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Recent Example<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>In 2024, BJP candidate Mukeshkumar Dalal was declared elected unopposed from Surat after all other candidates withdrew or had their nominations rejected.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Uncontested Elections in State Assemblies<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The petition also points out that uncontested elections are more frequent in state Assembly elections.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Response of the Election Commission of India (ECI)<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The ECI, in its counter affidavit, noted that uncontested elections occurred in only nine out of 20 Lok Sabha elections held between 1951 and 2024.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Since 1989, only one MP has been elected uncontested, highlighting that such instances have become extremely rare with the growth of political participation and voter awareness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Argument Against the Petition<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Commission argued that with democracy evolving and more parties contesting, the likelihood of uncontested elections is now minimal.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, the Supreme Court should not entertain the petition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Position on NOTA<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The ECI emphasized that the &#8220;None of the Above&#8221; (NOTA) option is available only when polling takes place.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>NOTA is not to be treated as a competing candidate in uncontested elections.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Need for Legislative Change<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Commission stated that recognizing NOTA as a mandatory contesting option would require amendments to the RPA, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, as the current law does not provide for this.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>View of the Supreme Court<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Suggestion for Minimum Vote Requirement<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>SC suggested that when only one candidate remains, they should be required to secure a minimum percentage of votes \u2014 such as 10% or 15% \u2014 to be declared elected, rather than winning automatically.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Democracy and Majority Principle<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>It emphasized that democracy is founded on majority support, and even in uncontested situations, a candidate should have at least some voters\u2019 approval to uphold democratic principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Advice to the Government<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>SC urged the government to consider introducing a provision to address such scenarios in the future, stressing that Parliament could decide the specifics.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>It questioned the idea of allowing someone to enter Parliament &#8220;by default&#8221; without even minimal voter support.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Supreme Court on Unopposed Elections FAQs<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What did the Supreme Court suggest for unopposed elections?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It suggested candidates must secure a minimum vote percentage to be declared elected.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> Which law allows automatic wins in uncontested elections?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> Why was the petition filed against uncontested elections?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It argued voters lose their right to express disapproval through NOTA.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What is the Election Commission\u2019s stand on uncontested elections?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The ECI said uncontested elections are now extremely rare.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What did the Supreme Court emphasize about democracy?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Democracy requires majority support, even when only one candidate contests.<\/p>\n<p>\n<strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/supreme-court-unopposed-election-wins-unconstitutional-9968747\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.barandbench.com\/news\/litigation\/supreme-court-suggests-vote-threshold-for-unopposed-election-wins\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">B&amp;B<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/consider-mandating-minimum-vote-share-even-for-unopposed-candidate-supreme-court-to-centre-9964385\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court proposes that unopposed candidates must secure minimum votes to win, challenging automatic wins under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":46395,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-46394","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46394\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}