Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

NOTA ( Right To Reject case )

384 visualizaciones

Publicado el

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2004
People’s Union for Civil
Liberties & Anr. .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

Publicado en: Derecho, Noticias y política
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

NOTA ( Right To Reject case )

  1. 1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
  2. 2. PETITIONER: People’s Union for Civil Liberties RESPONDENT: Union Of India Vs.
  3. 3. Judge P. SATHASIVAM (RANJANA PRAKASH
  4. 4. FACTS The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) had moved the apex court in 2004 with a plea that voters should have a right to negative vote, saying that it does not want to vote any of the candidates listed in EVM. Writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that these provisions violate the secrecy of voting.
  5. 5. ISSUES RAISED Whether NOTA should be added to the EVMs and ballot papers or not ? Whether negative voting is necessary or not ? Whether absence of negative voting violates the Freedom of Expression ?
  6. 6. ARGUMENTS Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right of a voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is not aintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extent of such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to the said Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Prior to NOTA still their was a concept available to the voters not to choose among the mentioned candidates. But in that condition his vote is considered to be rejected. In previous time election commission observed a essence need to introduce a system for the voters by which they can choose non of the candidates and along with this their would also not need to be rejected.
  7. 7. JUDGEMENT A milestone in Indian Constitutional Law after decades -Chief Justice Sathasivam said the mechanism of negative voting is necessary and vibrant part of democracy. The court directed the election commission to introduce a button providing for NOTA (none of the above) in the EVMs and also in the ballot papers. The Court struck down the constitutionality of Rules 41(2), 41(3) and 49(O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (Rules) as violates of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Apex Court directed the central government to provide all assistance to the election commission in introducing NOTA option in the EVMs and ballot papers. Besides, court also directed the Election Commission to undertake awareness programmes to educate the masses.
  8. 8. CONCLUSION The Supreme Court of India has delivered this historic judgment declaring that Indian Voters have a Constitutional right to reject all of the Contesting Candidates if voters believe that none of the Contesting Candidates is eligible to represent them in concerned Legislative House. India has just started a new blossoming in an advance stage of refined Democracy. People will be happy to turn-out in huge numbers to polling booths to give shock and dismay to Corrupt, notorius and antidemocratic Political Parties.

×