Disallowing right to cast negative vote defeats citizen rights

The Supreme Court today said that if a person is not allowed to cast negative votes, it would "defeat" the rights of the citizens as ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam, which held that voters have a right to reject all candidates contesting polls in a constituency by pressing a button for negative vote, observed that essence of the electoral system should be to ensure voter's freedom to exercise free choice.
"Article 19 guarantees all individuals the right to speak, criticise, and disagree on a particular issue. It stands on the spirit of tolerance and allows people to have diverse views, ideas and ideologies. Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 i.E., the right to liberty," the bench said.

The bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, observed that election is a mechanism which ultimately represents the will of the people.
"The essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice," it said.
The apex court also rejected Centre's objection that the petition seeking right to negative vote was not maintainable.

The Centre had sought dismissal of the PIL contending that since right to vote is not a fundamental right and merely a statutory right, the petition under Article 32 was not maintainable.
The bench, in its judgement, observed that the petition relates to the right of a voter and it was applicable to all voters of the country.

"Apart from the above, we would not be justified in asking the petitioners to approach the high court to vindicate their grievance by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this juncture," it said.
"Considering the reliefs prayed for which relate to the right of a voter and applicable to all eligible voters, it may not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to go to each and every high court and seek appropriate relief," the bench said.