RIGHT TO REJECT & SOME ARTICLE / SECTION 49(O)
By Anirban Roy, Advocate
Whenever and wherever there is a talk on corrupt people getting elected, we hear that there is some Article / Section 49(O) somewhere which gives the voters a “Right to Reject” in Elections. In other words, we have a right to vote for “None of the Above Candidates” and if the number of votes in this category exceeds the number of votes polled by the winning candidate, the election would become null and void and there would be a re-election.
There are emails & smses which go around giving details of these. We are also informed that political parties and politicians would never let this provision be known and therefore as citizens, we ought to assert this whenever we go out and vote.
I have seen a person writing a letter to this effect to “The Week” magazine and getting a gift of a wrist watch for the best letter. More recently, Smt. Kiran Bedi, a prominent member of Team Anna has been advocating the use of this 49 (O) procedure.
Neither the Constitution of India nor the Representation of People Act, 1951 has any such provisions.
A Rule 49 - O however exists in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It says as follows:
“ 49 – O : Elector deciding not to vote. If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.”
A simple reading of the above provisions would make it evident to any layman that the same relate to a procedure to be followed by a presiding officer whenever a person goes to the polling booth, registers as a voter and decides not to vote thereafter. Presumably this was enacted as a safeguard to ensure that there is no mis-match between the number of voters who have registered in the polling booth and the number of votes polled and further to ensure that while the said voter does not vote, someone else does not cast the vote in his name.
The above provision does not have anything remotely connected with “Right to Reject” in Elections.
Let us examine what happens if we all resort to this 49(O) procedure. Lets say there are 1,00,000 voters in a constituency and there are 10 candidates, Candidates 1 to 10. 99,500 people exercise this 49(O) procedure and 300 vote for Candidate 1 and balance 200 vote for Candidates 2 to 10. Candidate 1 would win with 300 votes. What would we achieve? Whom did we “Reject”? It would not even be recorded anywhere that 99,500 took the trouble of coming to the polling booth but did not vote.
It would not end there. With 99,500 voters registering themselves and not voting, if the presiding officer is not vigilant, it would make available 99,500 votes to be cast in favour of any candidate!!!.
Right to Reject is not entirely without merits but it has to be introduced after a lot of deliberations and after providing for several safeguards and after providing for several eventualities that would arise. There are issues like costs of multiple elections and so on. It cannot be introduced in a cavalier manner and in haste.
I had pointed out the above to Smt. Kiran Bedi when on January 28, 2012 she kept tweeting and urging people to follow the 49(O) procedure. She tweeted back to me “We begin with what we have. R2R will come with pressure. Nothing comes easy here.” I am sorry, I am not in agreement with her.
Please take an informed decision whether to follow the 49(O) procedure. Please remember, “Right to Vote” is a valuable right and a privilege. It is also coupled with a duty. Please do not deal with it casually.
Anirban Roy
January 29, 2012
Email: anirban@royslawfirm.com
Twitter : @AnirbanFromRLF
Facebook: Anirban FromRlf