PIL in HC seeks effective implementation of NOTA in local body elections

The PIL contended that the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) has undermined voters’ right to dissent by declaring uncontested winners without holding an actual poll

MUMBAI: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking proper implementation of the None of the Above or NOTA option in Maharashtra’s local body elections.

PIL in HC seeks effective implementation of NOTA in local body elections

The PIL, filed by Suhas Wankhede, a resident of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, contended that the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) has undermined voters’ right to dissent by declaring uncontested winners without holding an actual poll.

“Such unequal treatment, based purely on accident of contest rather than any rational principle, is arbitrary and strikes at the guarantee of equality and the idea of free and fair elections,” the petition said, seeking the inclusion of the NOTA option across local body constituencies in Maharashtra even if there was only one candidate.

Wankhede’s petition highlighted a 2004 Supreme Court judgment recognising the voter’s right to dissent through the NOTA option. It also pointed out a 2018 SEC order stating that NOTA shall be treated as a “fictional electoral candidate” for all urban local body elections in Maharashtra.

If NOTA secures more valid votes than each contesting candidate individually, no candidate will be declared elected, and a fresh election, commencing from the nomination stage, shall be held for that seat, the order said, according to the PIL. The SEC had also clarified that these directions apply to both general and bye-elections with immediate effect, the plea added.

Wankhede told the high court that he had written to the SEC after it published the election programme for 246 municipal councils and 42 nagar panchayats, which went to the polls on December 2. In his letter, Wankhede asked the SEC to implement the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit, emphasising its importance. However, the SEC allegedly did not implement the order when it published a revised election programme for 24 municipal councils and nagar panchayats, scheduled for December 20.

The petition argued that it is the SEC’s constitutional responsibility to conduct fair and transparent local body elections. By not implementing the order, voters were being deprived of the opportunity to express their views through the ballot on whether to support or reject a candidate, or press NOTA, it added.

“It is deeply troubling that the system is willing to stoop to a walkover approach, declaring a winner without letting the people vote at all, precisely when the voter’s right to record dissent through NOTA is most necessary,” the PIL said.

It further argued that allowing uncontested declarations without a poll encourages managed withdrawals and engineered non-contests, thereby weakening public scrutiny.

“The SEC cannot proceed mechanically to make an uncontested declaration that irreversibly extinguishes voter choice and dissent, and must adopt a rights-preserving course by holding an actual poll with NOTA or at least keep the uncontested declaration in abeyance pending clarity”, the petition said.

The petition urged the court to declare election rules for municipal councils, nagar panchayats, zilla parishads and panchayat samitis as “unconstitutional, illegal and void”. It also urged the SEC to conduct an actual poll for the seats, wards, and constituencies in Amravati, Jalgaon, Dhule, Beed, and Kolhapur, where unopposed candidates had been declared winners.

Wankhede also requested that the SEC be directed to issue uniform instructions to all returning officers and election staff, including for forthcoming municipal corporation, nagar panchayat and zilla parishad elections, clarifying that where only one candidate remains, an actual poll shall be conducted with NOTA available and effective.

The PIL, originally filed before the high court’s Aurangabad bench, was mentioned for urgent hearing before a division bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Gautam Ankhad on Tuesday, which agreed to hear the matter after two weeks.

Advocates Sachindra Shetye and Akshay Pansare, appearing for the SEC, told the court that since the results for the municipal council elections had already been declared, the PIL had become infructuous.