‘Must vote’ in an era of ‘no vote’ cries

That Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi himself abstained from voting in his government’s democratically laudable bill making voting in civic polls compulsory indicates the psyche of an aloof electorate. The efficacy and legality of Modi’s law depends on the severity of punishment to those who don’t vote. Newspaper reports suggest the law should be sympathetic to businessmen who are away on tour, but poor labour force must return home from distant stations to vote.

Modi’s attempt has to be watched with some anxiety, particularly when the Supreme Court’s judgment on whether citizens have the right to cast a ‘no vote’ or negative voting is awaited. The right to negative voting and mandatory voting cannot go hand in hand, in case SC upholds the right to abstain. If the purpose behind compulsory voting is to ensure that every person has a say in choosing his representative, then the ‘no vote’ button could prove counter-productive.

In April 2008, the Supreme Court rejected a petition that sought a direction to the election commission (EC) and the Centre to amend the election law, making voting in a country of over 71.4 crore voters (2009) compulsory. Over 41 crore had cast their votes in the last election.  A private member bill, the Compulsory Voting Bill, 2009, also lapsed with the dissolution of the House. MP JP Agarwal of the Congress, which is against the Modi law, had moved the bill suggesting a fine of Rs500 or two days’ imprisonment or forfeiture of ration card for those who fail to vote.

A former chief justice of India (CJI), Ranganath Mishra, himself filed a petition before the Supreme Court when he became an MP, seeking enactment of a law to make Article 51 A enforceable. Another former CJI, JS Verma, had suggested ‘operationalisation of fundamental duties’. Later, the NDA government set up a high-powered panel led by former CJI MN Venkatchaliah to determine whether “we failed the Constitution or the Constitution failed us.” The panel recommended implementation of Verma’s report. A noted lawyer, PP Rao, wonders whether a citizen could be forced to vote or forced to speak when maintaining silence is also his right.