IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2004 People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. .... Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

2. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

3. PETITIONER:
People’s Union for Civil
Liberties
RESPONDENT:
Union Of India
Vs.

4. Judge
P. SATHASIVAM
(RANJANA PRAKASH

5. FACTS
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.
Writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has
been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the constitutional
validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that these
provisions violate the secrecy of voting.

6. ISSUES RAISED
Whether NOTA should be added to the EVMs and
ballot papers or not ?
Whether negative voting is necessary or not ?
Whether absence of negative voting violates the
Freedom of Expression ?

7. ARGUMENTS
Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right of a voter not to
vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is not aintained
in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extent
of such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires
to the said Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
Prior to NOTA still their was a concept available to the
voters not to choose among the mentioned candidates. But in
that condition his vote is considered to be rejected. In previous
time election commission observed a essence need to introduce
a system for the voters by which they can choose non of the
candidates and along with this their would also not need to be
rejected.

8. JUDGEMENT
A milestone in Indian Constitutional Law after decades -Chief
Justice Sathasivam said the mechanism of negative voting is
necessary and vibrant part of democracy. The court directed the
election commission to introduce a button providing for NOTA
(none of the above) in the EVMs and also in the ballot papers.
The Court struck down the constitutionality of Rules 41(2), 41(3)
and 49(O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (Rules) as
violates of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The Apex Court directed the central government to provide all
assistance to the election commission in introducing NOTA
option in the EVMs and ballot papers. Besides, court also
directed the Election Commission to undertake awareness
programmes to educate the masses.

9. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of
India has delivered this
historic judgment
declaring that Indian
Voters have a
Constitutional right to
reject all of the
Contesting Candidates if
voters believe that none
of the Contesting
Candidates is eligible to
represent them in
concerned Legislative
House.
India has just started a
new blossoming in an
advance stage of refined
Democracy. People will
be happy to turn-out in
huge numbers to polling
booths to give shock and
dismay to Corrupt,
notorius and
antidemocratic
Political Parties.