Is a candidate winning an election ‘unopposed’ unconstitutional? | In Focus podcast

Arghya Sengupta speaks to us about whether the Election Commission is right about the provision of unopposed winners in elections, and what happens to the NOTA option in this case.

According to Section 53 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if there is only candidate contesting an election, then she can be declared elected unopposed. Now a legal think tank, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this provision. 

It cites the 2013 order of the Supreme Court which held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing ‘NOTA’ was protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It argues that this right is independent of how many candidates are contesting – therefore, not holding the election on the grounds that there is only one candidate deprives voters of this right.

Last week, the Supreme Court, while hearing this petition, suggested that in cases where there is only one candidate, there could be a requirement that the candidate should win a prescribed minimum of vote share – be it 20% or 25% or whatever – in order to be declared as elected.

But the Election Commission seems keen to retain the status quo, arguing that cases of candidates winning unopposed are rare and therefore the court should not entertain such a petition.

Is the Election Commission right? What if the phenomenon of candidates standing unopposed becomes more widespread in the future? What happens to the NOTA option then?

Guest: Arghya Sengupta, Founder and Research Director at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Delhi. 

Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu.