Reviewing NOTA

THE electoral no-show in Surat, where BJP candidate Mukesh Dalal was declared the winner unopposed, has reignited the debate on the NOTA (none of the above) option for the voters. The episode underscores the need for reforms to ensure that the fundamental right of citizens to choose their representatives is not violated or denied. The introduction of NOTA in 2013 on the directions of the Supreme Court was a landmark step aimed at empowering voters and holding political parties accountable.

However, the Surat fiasco highlights the limitations of NOTA in its current form. Lacking teeth, it has repeatedly failed to influence the poll result. The latest outcome has raised questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the centrality of voters in a democratic exercise. Should a candidate be declared victorious without having faced any opposition? Should NOTA necessitate a repoll if it gets more votes than any contestant?

The apex court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea seeking a repoll in constituencies where NOTA receives the majority of the votes. This calls for a re-evaluation of NOTA’s role in the electoral process. While NOTA serves as a symbolic gesture of dissent — a negative vote — its true potential lies in catalysing systemic change and deterring parties from fielding unsuitable candidates. Countries like Indonesia mandate a repoll if NOTA emerges ‘victorious’, thus ensuring that citizens’ dissatisfaction is addressed comprehensively. The ECI must explore ways to enhance NOTA’s effectiveness, including considering proposals to annul the elections in constituencies where it bags the highest number of votes. This will compel political parties to nominate candidates with an unblemished reputation. Promoting NOTA — or the right to reject — as a ‘fictional’ nominee can make it a potent tool of democratic expression.