To reduce unopposed wins in the elections, the Supreme Court on Thursday proposed that a lone candidate must secure a minimum percentage of the total votes cast to be declared elected [Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy vs. Union of India & Another]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh made the observation while hearing a petition moved by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy challenging the constitutional validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act.The provision allows the direct election of a candidate without voting if no other person is in fray. Justice Kant raised concerns about allowing a candidate to enter the parliament without receiving electorate’s support. "Would it not be progressive that if even only one candidate is in fray, but it is made mandatory that he gets at least 10% of votes. Why should we allow someone to enter parliament by default who hasn't even got 5% of total votes," the Court asked. .The Court thus said that the Union government may consider setting up an expert committee to examine the issue and propose recommendations for possible reforms related to uncontested elections. The Court granted the Central government four more weeks to file its response to Vidhi's plea and listed the case for further consideration on July 24..The Bench also added that India’s democracy has resolved every challenge and all Indians should be proud of it "Ours is most dynamic Constitution, which says democracy by majority.... no other Constitution says it this expressly...after all our democratic setup has resolved every challenge that all Indians should be proud of," the Court remarked. .Earlier, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Vidhi, presented data to highlight the prevalence of unopposed elections since India's independence. However, Justice Kant pointed out that uncontested elections have been rare. "We have seen the data, there are only 9 instances (in the Parliament)....we were borrowed democracy then (after 1947). Maybe we matured in 1975," the Court commented. However, Datar said the issue also affects legislative assembly elections, where such instances are more common. .In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani argued against any drastic changes to the law.He said that striking down the provision entirely would not be appropriate and called for a more measured approach to the issue.At this stage, Justice Kant clarified that the Court was not suggesting the removal or striking down of any provision but only recommending the addition of a proviso to Section 53(2)."We are not for striking anything, but we want you (Union government) to add something," Justice Kant said..[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]
