New Delhi: In a groundbreaking push to fortify India’s democratic process, the Supreme Court, on April 24, 2025, called on the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider requiring a minimum vote percentage for candidates in uncontested elections. This suggestion, raised during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing, challenges the current framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, aiming to ensure elected officials reflect true public support, even without opponents. Led by Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, the court’s remarks signal a forward-thinking approach to safeguarding voter representation and closing gaps in the electoral system.
The PIL and the Contested Law
The court’s observations arose from a PIL filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a think tank focused on legal advancements. The petition zeroed in on Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which outlines procedures for contested and uncontested elections. This section mandates that if only one candidate remains for a seat, they are declared elected without a vote. The petitioner argued that this rule sidesteps the democratic ideal of majority consent, allowing candidates to assume office without proving voter backing.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the Vidhi Centre, painted a vivid scenario: in a constituency of 100,000 voters, if 15,000 support the sole candidate but 30,000 prefer the None of the Above (NOTA) option, the lack of a voting process silences public choice. The PIL urged the court to either modify or nullify Section 53(2) to uphold constitutional democratic values.
Supreme Court’s Core Argument: Democracy Demands Support
Justice Surya Kant, leading the bench, stressed that democracy hinges on majority will. He questioned why uncontested elections should not require candidates to secure a baseline of votes—perhaps 10% or 20%—to validate their election. “Our Constitution is vibrant… It champions democracy by majority. So, to advance that very principle, why not require even a lone candidate to have some voter approval?” he asked.
The court emphasized that elected officials must reflect a degree of public endorsement, even in unopposed races. Justice Kant flagged the risk of candidates gaming the system by coercing rivals to withdraw nominations, leaving voters powerless. “Voters lose their chance to choose,” he said, noting that the current law permits candidates to enter legislatures “by default” without earning votes.
The bench recognized that uncontested parliamentary elections are rare, with the ECI reporting just nine cases historically. However, Datar pointed out that state assembly elections see more such instances, raising concerns about potential exploitation in smaller constituencies.
NOTA and Voter Voice
The discussion also highlighted the None of the Above (NOTA) option, established by the 2013 People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India ruling, which empowers voters to reject candidates under Article 19(1)(a). Justice Kant argued that voters should retain the right to express dissent in uncontested elections, especially if they oppose the only candidate.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, downplayed NOTA’s impact, calling it ineffective since it rarely alters election outcomes. Justice Kant countered that NOTA’s principle of voter expression should extend to uncontested scenarios. A minimum vote requirement, he suggested, could work alongside NOTA to ensure candidates prove their worth.
Pushing for Reform: A Proactive Fix
The court made clear it was not aiming to invalidate Section 53(2) but to urge the ECI and government to adopt “enabling measures” to address the issue. Justice Kant called the idea a “tool” to prepare for future challenges, asking, “Why allow someone to enter Parliament without even a small fraction of votes?” He advocated for a system that fosters multi-party competition and true representation.
The bench gave the government four weeks to respond, with the case set for review in July 2025. This proposal builds on the court’s legacy of driving electoral change, from mandating candidate transparency in 2002 to scrapping the Electoral Bonds Scheme in 2024.
The Court’s Track Record in Electoral Progress
The Supreme Court has consistently shaped India’s electoral landscape. Landmark rulings include:
- ADR v. Union of India (2002): Ordered candidates to reveal criminal, financial, and educational details.
- PUCL v. Union of India (2013): Established NOTA for voter empowerment.
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): Ended protections for convicted legislators, mandating immediate disqualification.
- Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2013): Stressed quick resolution of election disputes.
- ADR v. Union of India (2024): Nullified the Electoral Bonds Scheme for funding transparency.
These decisions highlight the court’s dedication to a robust, transparent democracy.
ECI’s Reform Initiatives
The ECI has also advanced electoral integrity through:
- SVEEP (2009): A campaign to boost voter education and turnout.
- Home Voting (2024): Enabled nationwide voting for seniors over 85 and PwDs with 40%+ disability.
- Voter ID Cleanup (2025): Partnering with UIDAI to remove duplicate voter IDs.
These efforts align with the court’s vision for a more inclusive and fair electoral system.
What the Reform Could Mean
Requiring a minimum vote share in uncontested elections could transform India’s democracy. It would ensure elected officials carry legitimate public support, deter nomination manipulation, and amplify voter agency alongside NOTA. However, setting the right threshold—whether 10% or higher—will be key to balancing feasibility and impact. The ECI would also need to adapt processes to enable voting in such cases.
Looking Ahead: A Defining Moment
The Supreme Court’s call for a vote mandate in uncontested elections is a bold step toward a more accountable democracy. As the government and ECI weigh this reform, India stands at a pivotal moment to strengthen its electoral integrity. The July 2025 hearing will draw keen attention, potentially marking a new milestone in the nation’s democratic evolution.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1.What is the Supreme Court’s proposal regarding uncontested elections in India?
The Supreme Court, on April 24, 2025, suggested that the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) consider mandating a minimum percentage of votes (e.g., 10% or 20%) for candidates in uncontested elections to be declared elected. This aims to ensure that even lone candidates have public support, aligning with the democratic principle of majority rule.
2.Why did the Supreme Court propose this reform?
The proposal came during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section allows a single candidate in an uncontested election to be declared elected without voting. The court argued that this could undermine democracy, as candidates might secure office without voter backing, especially if opponents are pressured to withdraw.
3. How does the None of the Above (NOTA) option relate to this proposal?
The court highlighted NOTA, introduced in 2013, which allows voters to reject candidates. In uncontested elections, voters currently cannot use NOTA or express dissent. The proposed minimum vote requirement would enable voting, letting citizens support or reject the lone candidate, reinforcing voter agency.
4. What could be the impact of mandating a minimum vote percentage?
This reform could ensure elected officials have legitimate public support, prevent manipulation of nominations (e.g., forcing withdrawals), and enhance democratic representation. However, setting an appropriate vote threshold and organizing voting for uncontested elections may pose logistical challenges for the ECI.
5. What are the next steps for this proposal?
The Supreme Court has given the Union government four weeks to respond to the proposal, with the matter scheduled for further hearing in July 2025. The government and ECI will need to evaluate the feasibility of amending election laws to include this “enabling provision” for uncontested elections.
