The Union government on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to exercise restraint on a public interest litigation questioning the law that allows “unopposed” candidates an automatic entry into Parliament and state assemblies, arguing that even PILs with “good ideas” should first be examined by the executive before inviting judicial intervention.
Appearing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that policy ideas, even if academically sound or backed by research, may not meet the threshold for judicial scrutiny when petitioners bypass the government and approach the court directly.
“Someone may have a good idea, but it may not be a good trend to approach courts directly without first going to the government. It is like someone developing a good idea only to file a petition in court. That may not be the right approach. The government should get to examine such ideas first,” Mehta told the bench, which also comprised justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The bench, however, indicated that it was inclined to examine the issue, observing that the petition raised “interesting points”.
“We are examining this since the petition raises some interesting issues,” the court said.
At this stage, attorney general R Venkataramani, also appearing for the Union government, supported the submissions of the solicitor general and reiterated the Centre’s stand that the issue was largely “academic” and did not merit judicial interference.
The court deferred further hearing in the matter to January. The petition has been filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
The PIL has challenged the legal framework under Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides for the direct election of a candidate when there is no contest, raising questions about whether voters are denied the right to express dissent, including through the “none of the above” (NOTA) option.
In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court and the Centre had publicly differed on whether the issue warranted judicial examination. In August, a bench headed by justice Kant had observed that the election of unopposed candidates could be viewed as an extension of the NOTA principle.
“If there is only one candidate and electors don’t want him to be elected through NOTA, that is a silent expression of the electorate, which is an interesting question,” the court had said. The bench had also noted that the election of an unopposed candidate is “not in the hands of the people”, adding that voters may still wish to go to the polling booth to register dissent.
The Centre, however, had consistently maintained that the issue was academic. AG Venkataramani had earlier told the court that instances of candidates being elected unopposed were rare after 1991 and questioned the need for judicial scrutiny.
The petitioner, disputing this claim, pointed out that at least 26 candidates had entered Parliament unopposed since 1952. It argued that the issue could be addressed prospectively to ensure that voters are not deprived of choice due to uncontested elections.
The Election Commission, in its response to the court, had stated that since the introduction of NOTA following a 2013 Supreme Court judgment, no election had been decided by a majority of NOTA votes. It also said that since the enactment of the 1951 law, there were only nine instances of unopposed elections.
During previous hearings, the court had also explored whether a minimum threshold of votes, ranging between 5% and 15%, should be required for a candidate to be declared elected, even in uncontested polls, to safeguard voter choice.
“We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised,” the court had observed, warning of the possibility of affluent candidates engineering uncontested elections, leaving voters with no effective means of opposition.
About the Author
