New Delhi, Apr 24 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to come up with certain “enabling” provisions requiring the unopposed candidates in elections to secure at least a minimum percentage of votes before being declared as winner.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while hearing a PIL against the validity of the Section 53 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the procedure in contested and uncontested elections.

Section 53 (2) says if the number of contesting candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats.

The bench, which perused the reply of the election commission, said there were only nine instances where uncontested candidates were declared winners in Parliamentary elections.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for petitioner think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said in assembly elections, these instances were more common.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, said in past 25 years, there was only a single instance at the Parliamentary election level where a candidate was declared as winner unopposed.

Datar tried to canvas his point by citing several hypothetical situations and asked what happens if a candidate uses official machinery to ensure his opponents withdraw? Justice Kant told the poll panel if this issue was addressed, it would be a very good reform.

“It’s not something that should cause inconvenience to anyone…It’s only a question of creating a mechanism which may or may not be utilised ever. Keeping the given trend of the changing dimensions in the political field, there is every possibility of some affluent candidate pressurising, influencing or persuading others who have filed nomination to withdraw at the last moment and only one candidate remains. Now suddenly the voters know that they have no other choice, except one person,” the judge said.

“Voters will never get a chance to elect,” Justice Kant added, “because the election commission will have to declare the candidate as elected unopposed in the existing regime.” Dwivedi urged the bench these were larger questions that only Parliament could consider.

The bench said the Indian democratic system had addressed every challenge in the past.

“Why should we allow someone to enter Parliament by default who is unable to get even five percent votes? It is only an enabling provision you can think of. If the provision is put in place and the problem arises in future, the election commission will have a mechanism in place,” the bench said.

Justice Kant said the proposed “enabling” provision would promote multiple-party culture and strengthen a healthy democracy.

Dwivedi, however, said in the poll panel experience’s NOTA was a “failed idea” and didn’t create any impact on the elections.

Attorney general R Venkataramani, for the Centre, said if something was desirable, the court could consider its desirability, but not strike down a law.

Justice Kant clarified the court was not considering striking down any provision of the law but merely impressing upon the poll panel to add something to the existing law. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK