L

q
7
F
v
E
O
9
2
-
A
)
3
(
R
y
:
R
"
k
m
h
,
u
d
p
g
b
r
t
c
n
a
f
I
:
s
b
r
d
n
a
t
i
o
p
S
.
1
4
e
l
u
”
Judgment:
In PUCL V. Union of India, the Rules 41(2), (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961, were challenged. Both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent were agreeing on the
fact that due to the effect of these rules the identity of the people who did not vote in the
election were recorded (by the presiding officer).

The Supreme Court’s verdict came in favor with the petitioners argument that these rules are
violating the right to secret balloting, protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

The main criteria held behind this judgment is that India which is the largest democracy in
the world have a system of direct election and secrecy is essential in maintaining the
effectiveness of the voting system.

Since the freedom to vote naturally included the freedom not to vote, it would be arbitrary to
extend secrecy to one and not the other. The apex court said the right to vote and the right to
say NOTA are both part of basic right of voters.

Further, the act of not voting was as much a positive exercise of free expression under Article
19(1)(a) as was voting itself, and so deserved similar levels of protection.
The two key components that came out of the SC’s judgment are:

 If a voter does not find any of the party/candidate worthy of his vote then he may
not vote or can press ‘NOTA’. In this judgment it was defined that Right to vote
also includes a right not to vote i.e. right to reject. Right to reject been originated
in freedom of speech and expression.
 The involvement of NOTA as an option brings focus on Right to secrecy. It is an
integral part of a free and fair election.  Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that it a right of a voter to cast his/her vote without any kind of pressure. Also,
under Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
secrecy and protection to a voter’s ID is mentioned and violation of this right
leads to punishment. Secrecy of the voters is necessary to maintain the essentials
which define a democracy. Every voter has a right to vote freely and in fair
manner and he cannot be asked or forced to not disclose his vote.

Relying on this case the court further held that ballot secrecy is a privilege under the
interest of the public and is constitutional. And there will be a breach of Article 19 if the
secrecy is not maintained.