The Supreme Court has rejected a public interest litigation that sought adequate rights to a voter to reject candidates in an election if the contestants were not found suitable to represent the constituency or address their grievances.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a public interest litigation that sought adequate rights to a voter to reject candidates in an election if the contestants were not found suitable to represent the constituency or address their grievances.
A Bench of Justices BN Aggarwal and PP Naolekar refused to entertain the petition, stating the petitioner can wait till the government takes a decision on electoral reforms suggested by the Election Commission.
Citing the serial killings of Nithari as the latest instance of a phlegmatic political system, petitioner Ashok Agarwal, a resident of Noida, pleaded for a direction to the EC to include a specific column in the ballot paper to enable a voter to reject candidates.
He pointed out that though the commission had made a recommendation to the government in October 2001, no such measure had been taken.
Agarwal contended that such an option should be available to a voter as only then it would lead to some sort of self-introspection among the candidates.
The petitioner argued that in the absence of such a provision in the Representation of People Act, candidates had started treating rather casually victory and defeat, as they were aware that the voters had little choice about the political parties in successive elections.
Under Rule 49 (O) of the Election Rules, a voter may refuse to vote after making his entry into the polling booths, but such refusal has to be attested by the presiding officer of the polling booth.
Such a provision, Agarwal submitted, was violative of the secret ballot system prevailing in the country. In other words, it was pointed out that if a voter's refusal to record the vote is attested by the presiding officer, then s/he was vulnerable to threats from the contestants.
However, the Bench did not find merit in the argument and suggested that the petitioner could wait till the government takes a decision on the electoral reforms.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}