NOTA FULL FORM
Introduction:
NOTA stands for “NONE OF THE ABOVE”
Since 2009, the majority of Indian elections have offered the voters an option to select "None of the Above," or NOTA. A citizen has the option of staying away from voting for any of the candidates running in the elections by indicating that they prefer none of the above.
In the 2013 PUCL v. Union of India ruling, the Supreme Court mandated the implementation of NOTA in relation to direct elections for the Lok Sabha as well as the corresponding state assemblies. The 2013 legislative elections in four states (Mizoram, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh), as well as the Union Territory of Delhi, experienced the initial utilization of the NOTA option. Since its launch, NOTA has gained popularity among Indian voters, receiving more votes than its margin of success in several assembly elections, including those held in Gujarat (2017), Madhya Pradesh (2018), Karnataka (2018), and Rajasthan (2018). Voters can express their disapproval of the candidates by using NOTA.
What does the 49-O rule mean? How does it vary from NOTA?
Rule 49-O of the 1961 Conduct of Elections Regulations states that an elector choosing not to vote must have a remark made against their entry in Form 17A.
The lack of confidentiality in 49-O sets it apart from NOTA. Section 49(O) was revoked as soon as the SC rejected the NOTA clause. It allowed poll workers to investigate the reasons for a voter's elimination of a candidate by looking through their nice remarks 17A. The authorities are unable to ascertain the basis for the denial through NOTA. Furthermore, it preserves the idea of individual choice by safeguarding an elector's identity.
Positive aspects of NOTA:
The positive aspects of their area unit cannot be disregarded despite its numerous negative aspects. The Supreme Court of India has a goal of pressuring political parties to nominate people with spotless records. The candidates who secure the victory join the nation's legislature. It was therefore considered important to discourage candidates with criminal, immoral, or disgusting past from running in the elections. The entire political landscape of the nation has the power to alter the outcome if the "None of the above" option is implemented with its genuine intention.
Negative aspects of NOTA:
Some nations that initially introduced the NOTA option eventually discontinued the program or did away with it entirely. There are chances that a ballot item with a NOTA button on it will receive more than half of the vote and hence "win" the election in nations where such ballots are available. Any of the following options would be preferred by the commission in such a situation: a) maintain the space empty, b) fill it by appointment, or c) call another election.
In this case, the State of the American state has an action of no impact on some. Hence, the winner is the next greatest total.
History of NOTA Vote:
When the Isla Prospect Municipal Information Council voted to include this option on the official elections ballot for the County of Santa Barbara, California, USA, during 1976, the concept of a "none of the above" ballot opportunity was born.
How did a voter register a negative vote prior to NOTA?
In 2009, the Bharat committee in India requested the high court to enable voters to select "None of the above" on the ballot, giving them the option of abstaining from selecting any undeserving candidate. Such an idea did not have the support of the government.
The "Associate in Nursing" chapter of the People's Union for Civil Rights issued a statement in support of NOTA in a public interest court procedure. Ultimately, on September 27, 2013, the High Court of India upheld the right to hold a "none of the above" election. The selection committee was then directed to provide a NOTA button on all voting machines, giving voters the option to select "none of the above."
Suggested Improvements:
There have been discussions of expanding NOTA to provide voters more power. Among the suggested enhancements are:
- In the scenario that NOTA obtains the most votes, the governor must consider over that constituency or an entirely new election with all new candidates should be held.
- Re-elections must be conducted in that region if NOTA gets the most votes.
- To prevent holding several re-elections, the NOTA option may be deactivated during re-elections.
- Re-election expenses are the responsibility of political parties who lose to NOTA.
- For a specific duration of time, candidates who fall short of NOTA may not be permitted to apply for election again.
- Even in regions where NOTA may not have received the majority of votes, candidates who receive less votes than NOTA will not be permitted to participate in any subsequent elections.
- If NOTA receives more votes than the winning margin, a new election will be held.
PILs seeking to 'strengthen' the effect of NOTA were submitted in 2016 and 2017, giving it the authority to reject candidates and demand new elections in the event that NOTA obtains a majority. But in response to these Public Interest Litigations, the Supreme Court declared that such a solution is "unworkable" and stated that "helding an election in our country is an extremely costly and expensive business."
There are others who contend that the enactment of NOTA will result in increased election costs. However, an illegal candidate who engages in unethical behaviour would be costlier to the nation. The only things that exceed values are the need to hold onto power and the thirst for wealth."
NOTA in Local Elections:
In the Kerala panchayat politics of 2015, NOTA was not involved. The ability to "refrain from voting at an election" is recognized as an "electoral right" under Section 79(d) of the Participation of the People Act, 1951. "Either House of Parliamentary or in the House or either House of the Legislative of a State" is subject to "The Representation of Peoples Act." The acts dealing to election campaigns to panchayats in Kerala do not recognize the "electoral right" or the right to "avoid from voting at an election".
These acts and regulations may need to be changed or amended in order to incorporate NOTA in panchayat elections in these states and to improve NOTA. When the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) examined the local body elections from the preceding two years in 2018, it discovered multiple instances in which NOTA had received more votes than the victorious candidates.
To provide a few instances: NOTA received 85.57% of the votes in the Bori gram panchayat election in the Pune district; at the Mankarwadi gram panchayat elections in the same district, 204 out of 330 eligible votes were cast in favour of NOTA. Only 120 votes were cast for the sarpanch of Khugaon Khurd in the Nanded district, whereas 627 of the 849 total votes were cast for NOTA. Comparably, the victorious candidate received 130 out of 441 eligible votes in a municipal election held in the Khavadi town, whereas NOTA received 210 votes.
The Maharashtra SEC made the decision of considering changing the current NOTA legislation in response to this. Re conduction of elections will be held if NOTA receives the most votes during the elections, the SEC declared in November 2018.
With immediate impact, the decision would apply for all municipal councils, municipal corporations, including nagar panchayats for both polls and by-polls. The candidate receiving the most votes overall, except NOTA, shall be proclaimed the victor if NOTA receives the most votes in the re-election as well. The disqualified candidates, however, are still eligible to stand for election again.
In November 2018, the Haryana SEC announced that NOTA would be considered a fictional contestant and that re-elections would take place in the event that NOTA received the majority of votes in the next municipal elections during December 2018.
Conclusion:
This tutorial discusses the option of NOTA for voters in Asian countries as an option in the majority of elections held since 2009. There is no electoral validity to the vote; even if a majority of the votes are cast, the winner will be determined by the nominee with the largest vote share. A voter can choose not to cast a vote for any of the nominees by selecting “none of the above”. The 2013 assembly elections in 4 states (Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Mizoram, and Madhya Pradesh) as well as the Union Territory of the urban centre were the first to use the NOTA option.