People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India

Case Summary: People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India

Citation: (2013) 09 SC CK 0063 | (2013) 10 SCC 1

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 161 of 2004 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Date of Decision: 27 September 2013

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, and Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Final Decision: Directions issued to provide NOTA (None of the Above) button in EVMs

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=265071

Law Points Raised:

• Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Rules 41(2), 41(3), 49-O – Secrecy of vote not protected for electors who choose not to vote.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 128 – Secrecy of voting.
• Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 – Right to freedom of expression and personal liberty.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 21(3).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 25(b).

Ratio Decidendi:

• Right not to vote is a part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• The existing mechanism under Rules 41(2), 41(3), and 49-O did not maintain secrecy for electors choosing not to vote.
• Secrecy is essential to free and fair elections and applies equally to electors choosing NOTA.
• The Constitution and electoral statutes imply a duty to protect secrecy of voting even when abstaining.

Final Ruling:

• Supreme Court held that voters have a right to secrecy even if they choose not to vote for any candidate.
• Directed the Election Commission to provide NOTA (None of the Above) option in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
• Held that secrecy of voting is integral to free and fair elections.

Relevant Paragraph Highlights:

• Para 1–3: Background and challenge to Rules 41(2), 41(3), and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules.
• Para 7–10: Submissions regarding secrecy of vote and request for NOTA.
• Para 12–15: Discussion on statutory and constitutional provisions on secrecy and voter rights.
• Para 16: Relief sought by petitioners and court's reasoning.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment upheld the voter's right to express dissent by choosing 'None of the Above' (NOTA) while maintaining vote secrecy. It emphasized the role of secrecy in electoral democracy and directed electoral reforms ensuring that abstention from voting also remains confidential, thereby strengthening the spirit of free and fair elections in India.

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=265071