Supreme Court suggests mandatory vote threshold in unopposed elections
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday proposed that a minimum percentage of votes should be mandated even in cases where a candidate is elected unopposed. The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh, raised this suggestion while hearing a petition filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
The Court questioned whether it would be appropriate to amend election laws to ensure that even unopposed candidates must secure a minimum percentage, 10%, 15% or more, of total votes cast in order to be declared elected.
"Will it not be a very welcome and progressive step where only one candidate is left in the fray, and still you say that you will be declared elected only when you get at least 10%, 15% votes, whatever the number may be," observed Justice Surya Kant, according to a report by The Indian Express.
The petition challenges Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently allows a candidate to be declared elected unopposed in case all other candidates withdraw. The petitioner has urged the Court to either read down or strike down this provision as unconstitutional, at least in its application to direct elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner, illustrated a hypothetical scenario where four candidates file nominations, but all except one withdraw at the last minute. In such a situation, he argued, voters who may prefer to vote for ‘NOTA’ (None of the Above) are rendered powerless.
Datar emphasized that in a constituency with one lakh voters, even if only 10,000 support the remaining candidate while 25,000 prefer NOTA, the current law denies voters a meaningful choice.
Justice Kant responded by highlighting the spirit of the Constitution, which upholds majority-based democracy. "Our Constitution, and we salute it, is one of the most dynamic… It says that democracy is by majority… So why not, in furtherance of achieving that very goal, we prescribe that even in a default direction, there should be at least some voters who are liking you," he said.
The Court directed the Centre and the Election Commission of India to examine whether such a reform could be incorporated into electoral law, ensuring greater voter engagement and legitimacy even in uncontested elections.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Kamala Harris claims she 'had a certain responsibility' to argue against Biden running again
Washington: Former US Vice President Kamala Harris said on Monday evening that she regrets not expressing her concerns about then-President Joe Biden running for a second term when a majority of Americans felt he was too old for the job.
"I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on," Harris told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in her first live television interview since the election.
Such a conversation, even if it happened privately and behind the scenes, would have been an extraordinary breach in a relationship between a president and vice president.
Harris' comments expand on a passage in her book, "107 Days," that looks back on her experience replacing Biden as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee after he dropped out of the race. Harris ultimately lost to Republican candidate Donald Trump.
In the book, Harris wrote that everyone in the White House would say “it's Joe and Jill's decision” about running for reelection, referring to the president and first lady. “Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness,” she wrote.
“The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”
In her interview with Maddow, Harris said, "when I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I'm talking about myself.”
Harris said in the interview she was concerned that “it would come off as completely self-serving” if she had counseled Biden not to seek reelection. She had competed against him for their party's 2020 nomination, and she was well positioned to run again.
A representative for Biden declined comment.
