The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to a plea challenging uncontested elections when there is only one candidate contesting the election [Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Union of India and anr].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in the case.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Harsh Parashar appeared for the petitioner, policy think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Vidhi in its plea said that Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 11 and Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 should be struck down.

It was contended that the above rules which allow election of lone candidates 'unopposed', effectively prevents voters from rejecting such candidates using the None of the Above (NOTA) option.

"This is a violation of a fundamental right, as in its judgement in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1 this Hon’ble Court has held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing the NOTA option on an EVM is protected in direct elections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India," Vidhi submitted.

The rules in question irrationally differentiate between voters in elections having one and multiple candidates.

"The only evident purpose for original enactment was to reduce the financial outlay on conducting elections and with giant developmental strides made by the nation, the same has become redundant ... Since, 1989, there has been a decline in the number of seats which are uncontested in the elections to the House of the People. However, such a decline is slower in case of State Legislative Assemblies where uncontested seats are a common occurrence."

The rules are also not in the interests of transparency since voter turnout in such constituencies is not recorded, it was contended.