Let voters speak, even in silence

The essence of a democracy is that voters are never denied a chance to elect who they believe best represents them. In that spirit, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked GoI and ECI whether a minimum vote threshold should be mandated even when there's only one candidate in the fray. It was hearing a plea by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy to strike down Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 - which allows such a candidate to be declared elected without a vote.

While uncontested elections are rare, the SC is right to call for a reassessment of the provision. But the proposed remedy - a minimum vote threshold - may hurt representation more. For one, it risks denying voters their say. If a candidate gets a certain percentage of the vote, with the rest opting for Nota, and that result falls below the threshold, it would invalidate the outcome - even though the candidate had more support than opposition. It also creates the possibility of repeated elections, leaving a constituency unrepresented. That's not democracy - it's gridlock.

Elections are meant to reflect public will, not meet a passing mark. If only one candidate stands and people still vote - whether for or against - that is a choice. Nota, introduced on the SC's nudge, has empowered voters to reject bad options. Instead of dismissing it as ineffective, as the ECI's counsel seemed to do by calling it a 'failed idea', parties should reflect on why voters use it - and improve their candidates accordingly. Democracy isn't neat. But voters aren't schoolchildren, and elections aren't exams. Representation must follow the vote - even when it's a quiet one.