NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday puzzled the Election Commission's notification allowing not one of the above (NOTA) option in the ballot papers for the Rajya Sabha polls announcing it was once meant to be exercised by way of person voters in direct polls.
A bench headed by way of Chief Justice Dipak Misra additionally reserved its verdict on a plea of Shailesh Manubhai Parmar, who was once the Congress' chief whip in the Gujarat meeting right through the last Rajya Sabha polls, through which the party had fielded sitting MP Ahmed Patel.
Parmar had challenged the ballot panel's notification allowing NOTA option in ballot papers.
"Why should a Constitutional court be party to an unconstitutional act ... If a person does not vote, he could be expelled by the party. But by introducing NOTA, you (EC) are legitimising the act of not voting," the bench, additionally comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, stated.
It stated the NOTA option was once meant for person voters in direct elections and now not for polls for Rajya Sabha and MLC seats.
The concept at the back of having an open ballot voting device in polls for the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils was once to restrain cross-voting because of corrupt practices, it stated.
The bench additionally stated that a lawmaker has to vote in step with the instructions of his or her party in such polls the place personal tastes need to be disclosed on party lines and the voter can not say that he would give first choice to a candidate after which give NOTA.
"Whether to vote and not to vote falls under the domain of the member of the house and the Election Commission cannot issue notification giving NOTA option," it stated.
"How can the Election Commission can enter into this arena," the bench requested, while paying attention to the submissions of Attorney General KK Venugopal, who adverse the ballot panel's notification, that NOTA should now not be made acceptable in Rajya Sabha and MLC elections.
Venugopal stated a party enters into some kind of "contract" with different party which was once beneficial to them and requested the MLAs to vote in step with its selections.
"Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expressions can be curtailed on the ground of morality," he stated, including that MLAs are certain by way of the decisions in their respective parties.
The ballot panel adverse the plea in opposition to NOTA provision and stated that it was once an "abuse" of the criminal process.
The bench requested the ballot panel as to why it was once venturing into the "complicated" area.
"Heard Abhishek Manu Singvhi, senior counsel for the petitioner, KK Venugopal, attorney general, appearing for the Union of India and Amit Sharma, for the Election Commission. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved," the bench stated.
Earlier, the court had refused to stay the Election Commission's notification allowing NOTA option in the ballot paper for the Rajya Sabha polls in Gujarat from the place Patel was once additionally contesting.
It had, alternatively, agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the NOTA provision in the Rajya Sabha polls, announcing that the problem needed to be debated.
It had requested the legal professional basic to assist the court right through the listening to.
The Gujarat Congress leader had alleged that if the NOTA provision was once allowed in the Rajya Sabha polls, it will encourage "horse-trading and corruption".
The ballot panel had stated that NOTA was once first offered in 2014 following an apex court verdict a 12 months previous and so they (Congress) did not have any objection in subsequent polls because it suited them.
A bench headed by way of Chief Justice Dipak Misra additionally reserved its verdict on a plea of Shailesh Manubhai Parmar, who was once the Congress' chief whip in the Gujarat meeting right through the last Rajya Sabha polls, through which the party had fielded sitting MP Ahmed Patel.
Parmar had challenged the ballot panel's notification allowing NOTA option in ballot papers.
"Why should a Constitutional court be party to an unconstitutional act ... If a person does not vote, he could be expelled by the party. But by introducing NOTA, you (EC) are legitimising the act of not voting," the bench, additionally comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, stated.
It stated the NOTA option was once meant for person voters in direct elections and now not for polls for Rajya Sabha and MLC seats.
The concept at the back of having an open ballot voting device in polls for the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils was once to restrain cross-voting because of corrupt practices, it stated.
The bench additionally stated that a lawmaker has to vote in step with the instructions of his or her party in such polls the place personal tastes need to be disclosed on party lines and the voter can not say that he would give first choice to a candidate after which give NOTA.
"Whether to vote and not to vote falls under the domain of the member of the house and the Election Commission cannot issue notification giving NOTA option," it stated.
"How can the Election Commission can enter into this arena," the bench requested, while paying attention to the submissions of Attorney General KK Venugopal, who adverse the ballot panel's notification, that NOTA should now not be made acceptable in Rajya Sabha and MLC elections.
Venugopal stated a party enters into some kind of "contract" with different party which was once beneficial to them and requested the MLAs to vote in step with its selections.
"Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expressions can be curtailed on the ground of morality," he stated, including that MLAs are certain by way of the decisions in their respective parties.
The ballot panel adverse the plea in opposition to NOTA provision and stated that it was once an "abuse" of the criminal process.
The bench requested the ballot panel as to why it was once venturing into the "complicated" area.
"Heard Abhishek Manu Singvhi, senior counsel for the petitioner, KK Venugopal, attorney general, appearing for the Union of India and Amit Sharma, for the Election Commission. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved," the bench stated.
Earlier, the court had refused to stay the Election Commission's notification allowing NOTA option in the ballot paper for the Rajya Sabha polls in Gujarat from the place Patel was once additionally contesting.
It had, alternatively, agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the NOTA provision in the Rajya Sabha polls, announcing that the problem needed to be debated.
It had requested the legal professional basic to assist the court right through the listening to.
The Gujarat Congress leader had alleged that if the NOTA provision was once allowed in the Rajya Sabha polls, it will encourage "horse-trading and corruption".
The ballot panel had stated that NOTA was once first offered in 2014 following an apex court verdict a 12 months previous and so they (Congress) did not have any objection in subsequent polls because it suited them.
SC questions EC on NOTA option in Rajya Sabha polls
![SC questions EC on NOTA option in Rajya Sabha polls]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
July 30, 2018
Rating:
