Questioning the polls ‘rain washes out play’ moments Premium

There needs to be wide-ranging debate so that we can avoid the prospect of ‘rain washes out play’ or a ‘collusive walkover’ in elections

Getting elected unopposed is perfectly legal in the existing provisions of electoral laws and practice. It is also thrilling. You emerge as the unrivalled representative of the people without the people having chosen you because you are the only choice on the ballot. It is like achieving something without making the requisite effort.

Rule 11 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 says: “(1) The returning officer shall… cause a copy of the list of contesting candidates to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office and where the number of contesting candidates is equal to, or less than, the number of seats to be filled, he shall, immediately after such affixation, declare under sub-section (2) or as the case may be, sub-section (3) of section 53 the result of the election in such one of the Forms 21 to 21B as may be appropriate....”

Yes, in such a scenario, there is a victor but there is no ‘vanquished’ party. There are only those who are ruled out under the Rules and those who decided to ‘voluntarily’ withdraw. We must remember the recent example of the Surat Lok Sabha seat where the two candidates were disqualified and eight others withdrew. The purpose of this article is not to question the circumstances behind the extraordinary sequence of events but to go deeper into the process underlying the exercise of democratic rights.

Similarly, 10 other Assembly seats were procured in Arunachal Pradesh. Section 53 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 says: “(1) If the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken.] (2) If the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats.”

The question raised by some is that this process does not allow electors to exercise the None of the Above (NOTA) option. The NOTA option was not originally provided for in law but incorporated on court directions to ‘enlighten’ political parties and candidates about what some people thought of them.

That NOTA does not impact the election process in any way might sound insulting to those who think that way. The pity is that it does not even seem to affect political parties in any way whatsoever. Thus, what was conceived to be a progressive reform to influence the political culture hangs over the system like an “ineffectual angel, beating in the void his luminous wings in vain”.

However, the real question arises here: what happens if no one opts to contest the election or if all the electors boycott the election and “have failed to elect a person…to fill the vacancy”?