Centre says right to vote not same as freedom of voting, Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Centre has differentiated between the 'right to vote' (statutory) and 'freedom of voting' (fundamental right to expression) in the Supreme Court.
• The case concerns a petition challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and related election rules regarding uncontested elections.
• Petitioners argue that declaring unopposed candidates elected prevents citizens from exercising their right to NOTA (None of the Above).
• The Centre argues that freedom of voting is linked to the existence of a poll, which doesn't occur in uncontested elections.

Detailed Insights:

• The petition challenges the validity of declaring candidates elected unopposed when the number of candidates equals the number of seats, preventing voters from expressing dissatisfaction via NOTA.
• The 'right to vote' is conferred by Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while the 'freedom of voting' is considered a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The Centre cited a 2003 Supreme Court judgment stating that while the initial right to vote is not a fundamental right, the act of casting a vote represents the voter's freedom of expression.
• The government contends that the freedom of voting, including the option of NOTA, is contingent on a poll taking place, which is not mandated when candidates are unopposed.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Right to Vote: A statutory right conferred by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, subject to limitations within the statute.
• Freedom of Voting: Considered a facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• NOTA (None of the Above): An option allowing voters to express disapproval of all contesting candidates in an election.