Holding

NOTA cannot be introduced in indirect elections to the Council of States as it contravenes the constitutional scheme, the anti‑defection provisions and exceeds the Election Commission's statutory authority.

Summary

The petition filed by Shailesh Manubhai Parmar, the Chief Whip of the INC in Gujarat, challenged the Election Commission's circulars that introduced the "None of the Above" (NOTA) option in Rajya Sabha (Council of States) elections. The Court examined whether NOTA, which was introduced for direct elections to Parliament and State Assemblies, could be extended to indirect elections governed by Article 80(4) and the single transferable vote system. It held that indirect elections involve open ballot, party whips and transferable vote values, and that introducing NOTA would undermine party discipline, facilitate defection and corrupt practices, contrary to the purpose of the Tenth Schedule and the constitutional scheme. The Court further observed that the Election Commission must act within the limits of Parliament‑made law and cannot create a new provision not authorized by the Representation of the People Act. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the circulars directing NOTA in Council of States elections were quashed.

Issues considered

The applicability of NOTA to indirect elections to the Council of States under Article 80(4).
Whether the Election Commission has the authority to introduce NOTA in Rajya Sabha elections under the Conduct of Election Rules and the Representation of the People Act.
The impact of NOTA on party discipline, the Tenth Schedule (anti‑defection law), and the purity of elections in indirect elections.
The distinction between direct and indirect elections for the purpose of extending the PUCL judgment.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 22, s. Rule 30, s. Rule 70, s. Rule 73, s. Rule 74, s. Rule 75, s. Rule 76, s. Rule 79, s. Rule 80, s. Rule 81
Constitution of Indias. Article 191(2), s. Article 324, s. Article 80(4), s. Fifty-Second Amendment Act, 1985, s. Tenth Schedule
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 128, s. 59, s. 69, s. 79

Subjects

NOTARajya SabhaIndirect electionOpen ballotParty disciplineDefectionTenth ScheduleRepresentation of the People ActElection CommissionArticle 80Constitutional law

Judgment

76 [2018]
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 76
REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR
v.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH
THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.631 of 2017)
B
AUGUST 21, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
C
Art. 80(4) – Election for Council of States – Applicability of
the option “None of the Above” (NOTA) – Election Commission
introducing NOTA to Council of States elections – Challenged
u/Art. 32 of the Constitution – Held: NOTA was introduced for
direct elections i.e. of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies
D – There is distinction between direct election and indirect election –
Option of NOTA to Council of States election, which is indirect
election, would not only undermine the purity of democracy but
also serve the satan of defection and corruption.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court
E
HELD: 1. Election Commission has treated the
pronouncement in *PUCL’s case as its source of power. The
decision in *PUCL relates to direct elections. The Court, in fact,
has clearly observed that the directions pertain to the Parliament
and State Legislative Assemblies which is constituency based
F and grants an option to the voters to exercise the benefit of NOTA.
In the said decision, emphasis has been laid on universal adult
suffrage conferred on the citizens of India by the Constitution
and the entitlement of a voter to come to the polling booth and
decide to vote for any candidate or to exercise the right not to
G vote. There has been distinction between direct and indirect
elections.[Para 18] [92-D-F]
Kuldip Nayar and Others v. Union of India and Others
(2006) 7 SCC 1 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 1 – followed.

H
76
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 77
COMMISSION OF INDIA

2. In election for Council of States, there is voting by open A
ballot and it has been so introduced to sustain the foundational
values of party discipline and to avoid any kind of cross voting
thereby ensuring purity in the election process. They have been
treated as core values of democracy and fair election. In a voting
for members of the Council of States, the nature of voting by an
B
elector is a grave concern. It is because in such an election,
there is a party whip and the elector is bound to obey the command
of the party. The party discipline in this kind of election is of
extreme significance, for that is the fulcrum of the existence of
political parties. It is essential in a parliamentary democracy.
The thought of cross voting and corruption is obnoxious in such C
a voting. [Para 19] [93-E-G]
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Others (1994) 2
Suppl. SCC 641 : [1994] 1 SCR 754 – relied on.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992) 2 Suppl.
SCC 651 : [1992] 1 SCR 686 – referred to. D

3. The introduction of the Tenth Schedule in the
Constitution, by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act,
1985 was introduced to eradicate the evil of political defection. E
On a keen scrutiny of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
the concept of disqualification to rule out defection, it is clear
that the same is indirectly defeated by the introduction of NOTA.
[Para 22] [95-F; 96-B]
4. In a democracy, the purity of election is categorically F
imperative. The democratic body polity stipulates that the
quintessential idea of democracy is abhorrent to corruption and
laws emphasize on prevalence of genuine orderliness, positive
propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant
affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone of
good governance. The purity of democracy does not withstand G
anything that has the potential to create an incurable chasm in
the backbone of a democratic setup. The law is meant to eradicate
the same. When one analyses the exercise of choice of NOTA in
the voting process of the Council of States where open ballot is
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A permissible and secrecy of voting has no room and further where
the discipline of the political party/parties matters, it is clear that
such choice will have a negative impact.[Para 23] [96-B-D]
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 :
[2014] 9 SCR 965 – relied on.
B 5. An elector, though a single voter, has a quantified value
of his vote and the surplus votes are transferable. There is
existence of a formula for determining the value of the vote. The
concept of vote being transferable has a different connotation. A
candidate after being elected becomes a representative of the
C State and does not represent a particular constituency. The
cumulative effect of all these aspects clearly conveys that the
introduction of NOTA to the election process for electing
members of the Council of States will be an anathema to the
fundamental criterion of democracy which is a basic feature of
the Constitution. [Para 23] [96-E-F]
D
6. The introduction of NOTA in such an election will not
only run counter to the discipline that is expected from an elector
under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution but also be
counterproductive to the basic grammar of the law of
disqualification of a member on the ground of defection. It is a
E well settled principle that what cannot be done directly, cannot
be done indirectly. If NOTA is allowed in the election of the
members to the Council of States, the prohibited aspect of
defection would indirectly usher in with immense vigour.
[Para 23] [96-G-H; 97-A-B]
F 7. The purpose of introduction of NOTA in *PUCL’s case
is that a provision for negative voting can send a clear message
to the political parties and what a voter thinks about the candidates
in the fray. Thus, the said decision is directly relatable to a direct
election, one man, one vote and one value. [Para 24] [97-B-C]
G 8. The Election Commission has to act within the four
corners of law made by the Parliament. That apart, if any direction
is issued by this Court interpreting a provision for furtherance of
purity of election, it will be obligatory on the part of the
Commission to act in accordance with the same. The Commission
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 79
COMMISSION OF INDIA

cannot be allowed to conceive of certain concepts or ideas or, for A
that matter, think of a different dimension which would not fit
into the legal framework. [Para 26] [99-A-B]

9. The introduction of NOTA in indirect elections
completely ignores the role of an elector in such an election and
fully destroys the democratic value. The option of NOTA may B
serve as an elixir in direct elections but in respect of the election
to the Council of States which is a different one, it would not only
undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of
defection and corruption. [Para 27] [99-E, F-G]
C
*People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Another v. Union
of India and Another (PUCL) (2013) 10 SCC 1 :
[2013] 12 SCR 283 ; Ananga Uday Singh Deo v.
Ranga Nath Mishra and Others (2002) 1 SCC 499 :
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 88 ; Lily Thomas v. Speaker,
Lok Sabha and Others (1993) 4 SCC 234 : [1993] 1 D
Suppl. SCR 791 ; Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
[1955] 2 SCR 225 ; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan
and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(1982) 1 SCC 39 : [1982] 1 SCR 1137 – referred to.

Case Law Reference E

[2013] 12 SCR 283 referred to Para 2

[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 88 referred to Para 6

[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 791 referred to Para 9 F
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 1 followed Para 12

[1955] 2 SCR 225 referred to Para 18

[1982] 1 SCR 1137 referred to Para 18
G
[1994] 1 SCR 754 relied on Para 19

[1992] 1 SCR 686 referred to Para 19

[2014] 9 SCR 965 relied on Para 23
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 631 of 2017.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, ASG, Dr. Abhishek Manu
Singvhi, Sr. Adv., Devadatt Kamat, Javedur Rahman, Mohd. Nizam
Pasha, Amit Bhandari, Aditya Bhat, Rajesh Inamdar, Farrukh Rasheed,
B Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Ayiala Imti, Merusagar Samantray,
Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ms. Lhingneivah, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. In the instant writ petition preferred
C under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the
Chief Whip of the Indian National Congress party in Gujarat Legislative
Assembly challenges the circular dated 1st August, 2017 issued by the
Secretary, Gujarat Legislature Secretariat, the Respondent No.3 herein,
in relation to the conduct of elections for the Council of States. Though
D the circular covers various aspects, he has challenged the availability of
the option “None of the Above” (NOTA).
2. It is asserted that the Election Commission of India had issued
directions to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and the Union
Territories (except Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra &
E Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep) directing that the option
of NOTA could be applicable for elections in the Rajya Sabha and the
said option shall be printed on the ballot paper in the language or languages
in which the ballot paper is printed as per the directions issued by the
Election Commission in pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 and sub-
rule (1) of Rule 30 read with Rule 70 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
F 1961 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Reference has been made to the
communication dated 12th November, 2015 by the 1st respondent to the
Chief Electoral Officers of all the States giving further directions
regarding the manner of voting in preferential system but we are only
concerned with the applicability of NOTA to the Rajya Sabha elections.
G It is contended in the petition that the circulars issued by the Election
Commission of India introducing NOTA to the elections in respect of
members of the Rajya Sabha are contrary to the mandate of Article
80(4) of the Constitution of India and the decision of this Court in People’s

H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 81
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and another A
(PUCL)1. It does not lend any support to the understanding of the Election
Commission for introducing such an option in respect of Rajya Sabha
elections. It is averred that Section 59 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (for brevity, ‘the 1951 Act’) provides for the manner
of voting at elections and Section 169 empowers the Central Government,
B
after consulting the Election Commission, to make rules for carrying out
the purposes of this Act. Reference has been made to Part VI of the
Rules which makes special provisions for voting at elections by Assembly
members and Rule 70 provides that Rules 37(8) to 40A shall apply. Relying
on the interpretation of the said Rules, it is urged that the scheme of the
Rules referred to above and Rules 71 to 76 do not remotely conceive of C
NOTA but the same has been brought in by issuance of circular by the
Election Commission and, hence, the same is unconstitutional.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent
contending, inter alia, that the constitutional courts do not interdict in
the election process and challenge can only be made after the election is D
over by filing an election petition before the appropriate court; that as
per the pronouncement in PUCL’s case, there is no distinction between
direct and indirect elections and, hence, the provision of NOTA in the
ballot paper of the elections has been made applicable by the Election
Commission to Rajya Sabha to effectuate the right of electors guaranteed
to them under Section 79A of the Act; that though there is no need for E
secrecy in Rajya Sahba elections because the law makes it open voting,
yet that does not take away the right of the elector not to vote by
expressing the option of NOTA; that even assuming the position that the
judgment in PUCL’s case does not indicate that this Court ever intended
to apply the option of NOTA to Rajya Sabha elections, yet the Election F
Commission has issued letter dated 24th January, 2014 and further
reiterated by letter dated 12th November, 2015 that the option of NOTA
would be applicable to elections in Rajya Sabha; and that elections had
already been held by applying the said option and, therefore, there is no
justification to challenge the said directions at a belated stage. Be it
noted, the first two points were advanced as preliminary objections and G
all the other grounds raised pertained to the validity of the circular issued
by the 1st respondent.

1
(2013) 10 SCC 1
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 4. We may immediately note that the issue of introduction of an
election process does not arise in the present case. As regards the issue
of maintainability of the writ petition, no argument was advanced in that
regard and, we have no hesitation to say, correctly so.
5. To understand and appreciate the controversy, it is imperative
B to scrutinize what has been envisaged under Article 80(4) of the
Constitution. Article 80 deals with the composition of the Council of
States. Article 80(4) reads as follows:-
“(4) The representatives of each State in the Council of States
shall be elected by the elected members of the Legislative
C Assembly of the State in accordance with the system of
proportional representation by means of the single transferable
vote.”
6. In Ananga Uday Singh Deo v. Ranga Nath Mishra and
others2, a three-Judge Bench has dealt with the nature of election to the
D Council of States. It is useful to reproduce a few passages from the
same:-
“41. The system of proportional representation by single
transferable vote comes into operation only if there is more than
one candidate to be elected. The election is held by multi-member
E constituencies. All the candidates who compete for the seats
allotted to a constituency have their names printed on one ballot
paper. Each elector has only one vote in the sense that it will be
capable of electing one candidate only. But that vote will not be
wasted in case the candidate whom he wishes to elect has got
more than the required number of votes, called the “quota”. The
F elector is required to indicate his multiple preferences by placing
the figures 1, 2 and 3 in order of preferences. The surplus votes in
the hands of the candidates declared elected are transferred to
the then candidates.”
x x x x
G
43. Rule 74 provides that the Returning Officer after rejecting the
ballot papers which are invalid arrange the remaining ballot papers
in parcels according to the first preference recorded for each
candidate; count and record the number of papers in each parcel
2
(2002) 1 SCC 499
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 83
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

and the total number; and credit to each candidate the value of A
the papers in his parcel. Rule 76 provides for ascertainment of
quota. It provides that at any election where more than one seat
is to be filled, every valid ballot paper shall be deemed to be of the
value of 100, and the quota sufficient to secure the return of a
candidate at the election shall be determined by adding the value
B
credited to all the candidates and then dividing the total by a number
which exceeds by one the number of vacancies to be filled and
then to add one to the quotient ignoring the remainder, if any, and
the resulting number is the quota. In simple words it would work
as under:
Total Number of ballot papers +1 = Quota C

Number of members to be elected + 1
44. Rule 78 provides that if at the end of any count or at the end
of the transfer of any parcel or sub-parcel of an excluded candidate
the value of ballot papers credited to a candidate is equal to, or D
greater than the quota, that candidate shall be declared elected.”
7. Presently, we may refer to Rules 79, 80 and 81 of the Rules
which read as follows:-
“79. Transfer of surplus.—(1) If at the end of any count the
value of the ballot papers credited to a candidate is greater than E
the quota, the surplus shall be transferred, in accordance with the
provisions of this Rule, to the continuing candidates indicated on
the ballot papers of that candidate as being next in order of the
elector’s preference.
(2) If more than one candidate have a surplus, the largest surplus F
shall be dealt with first and the others in order of magnitude:
Provided that every surplus arising on the first count shall be dealt
with before those arising on the second count and so on.
(3) Where there are more surpluses than one to distribute and
two or more surpluses are equal, regard shall be had to the original G
votes of each candidate and the candidate for whom most original
votes are recorded shall have his surplus first distributed; and if
the values of their original votes are equal, the returning officer
shall decide by lot which candidate shall have his surplus first
distributed. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A (4)(a) If the surplus of any candidate to be transferred arises
from original votes only, the returning officer shall examine all the
papers in the parcel belonging to that candidate, divide the
unexhausted papers into sub-parcels according to the next
preferences recorded thereon and make a separate sub-parcel of
the exhausted papers.
B
(b) He shall ascertain the value of the papers in each sub-parcel
and of all the unexhausted papers.
(c) If the value of the unexhausted papers is equal to or less than
the surplus, he shall transfer all the unexhausted papers at the
C value at which they were received by the candidate whose surplus
is being transferred.
(d) If the value of the unexhausted papers is greater than the
surplus, he shall transfer the sub-parcels of unexhausted papers
and the value at which each paper shall be transferred shall be
D ascertained by dividing the surplus by the total number of
unexhausted papers.
(5) If the surplus of any candidate to be transferred arises from
transferred as well as original votes, the returning officer shall re-
examine all the papers in the sub-parcel last transferred to the
E candidate, divide the unexhausted papers into sub-parcels
according to the next preferences recorded thereon, and then deal
with the sub-parcels in the same manner as is provided in the
case of sub-parcels referred to in sub-rule (4).
(6) The papers transferred to each candidate shall be added in
F the form of a sub-parcel to the papers already belonging to such
candidate.
(7) All papers in the parcel or sub-parcel of an elected candidate
not transferred under this Rule shall be set apart as finally dealt
with.
G 80. Exclusion of candidates lowest on the poll.—(1) If after all
surpluses have been transferred as hereinbefore provided, the
number of candidates elected is less than the required number,
the returning officer shall exclude from the poll the candidate lowest
on the poll and shall distribute his unexhausted papers among the
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 85
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

continuing candidates according to the next preferences recorded A
thereon; and any exhausted papers shall be set apart as finally
dealt with.
(2) The papers containing original votes of an excluded candidate
shall first be transferred, the transfer value of each paper being
one hundred. B
(3) The papers containing transferred votes of an excluded
candidate shall then be transferred in the order of the transfers in
which, and at the value at which, he obtained them.
(4) Each of such transfers shall be deemed to be a separate transfer
but not a separate count. C

(5) If, as a result of the transfer of papers, the value of votes
obtained by a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, the
count then proceeding shall be completed but no further papers
shall be transferred to him.
D
(6) The process directed by this Rule shall be repeated on the
successive exclusions one after another of the candidates lowest
on the poll until such vacancy is filled either by the election of a
candidate with the quota or as hereinafter provided.
(7) If at any time it becomes necessary to exclude a candidate
E
and two or more candidates have the same value of votes and are
the lowest on the poll, regard shall be had to the original votes of
each candidate and the candidate for whom fewest original votes
are recorded shall be excluded; and if the values of their original
votes are equal the candidates with the smallest value at the earliest
count at which these candidates had unequal values shall be F
excluded.
(8) If two or more candidates are lowest on the poll and each has
the same value of votes at all counts the returning officer shall
decide by lot which candidate shall be excluded.
81. Filling the last vacancies.—(1) When at the end of any G
count the number of continuing candidates is reduced to the number
of vacancies remaining unfilled, the continuing candidates shall
be declared elected.

H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A (2) When at the end of any count only one vacancy remains unfilled
and the value of the papers of some one candidate exceeds the
total value of the papers of all the other continuing candidates
together with any surplus not transferred, that candidate shall be
declared elected.
B (3) When at the end of any count only one vacancy remains unfilled
and there are only two continuing candidates and each of them
has the same value of votes and no surplus remains capable of
transfer, the returning officer shall decide by lot which of them
shall be excluded; and after excluding him in the manner aforesaid,
declare the other candidate to be elected.”
C
8. In Ananga Uday Singh Deo (supra), interpreting the said
Rules, the Court held :-
“46. Rule 79 comes into operation in case a candidate or more
than one candidate has received more votes than the required
D quota. If at the end of any count the value of the ballot papers
credited to a candidate is greater than the quota, the surplus shall
be transferred in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, to
the continuing candidates indicated on the ballot papers of that
candidate as being next in order of the elector’s preference. After
working out the surplus votes in order of preference in favour of
E the remaining candidates, the surplus votes are transferred to the
remaining candidates and added to the value of votes polled by
that candidate. In this exercise if any candidate reaches the
requisite quota, then he is declared elected.
47. If no candidate wins on transfer of the surplus votes obtained
F by him from the surplus of votes from the candidate who is already
declared elected, then the provision of exclusion of candidates
lowest on polled votes as provided under Rule 80 comes into
operation. The Returning Officer then excludes from the poll the
candidate lowest on the poll and distributes his unexhausted ballot
G papers among the continuing candidates according to the next
preference recorded thereon. The process is continued till the
total number of vacancies is filled up.”
From the aforesaid analysis by the Court, it is discernible that the
vote of an elector has certain value and that there is transfer of surplus
votes.
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 87
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

9. In PUCL’s case, the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2), 41(3) A
and 49-O of the Rules was challenged to the extent that the said Rules
violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the concept of free
and fair election and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 of
the 1951 Act and Rules 39 and 49-N of the Rules. The Court referred
to the decision in Lily Thomas v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and others3
B
wherein it has been stated that voting is a formal expression of will or
opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue
in question and that right to vote means the right to exercise the right in
favour of or against the motion or resolution and such a right implies
right to remain neutral as well. Thereafter, the Court referred to Section
79 of the 1951 Act and Rules 41(2), 41(3) and 49-O of the Rules and C
opined that the Rules make it clear that a right not to vote has been
recognized both under the 1951 Act and the Rules. It further expressed:-
“….A positive “right not to vote” is a part of expression of a voter
in a parliamentary democracy and it has to be recognised and
given effect to in the same manner as “right to vote”. A voter D
may refrain from voting at an election for several reasons including
the reason that he does not consider any of the candidates in the
field worthy of his vote. One of the ways of such expression may
be to abstain from voting, which is not an ideal option for a
conscientious and responsible citizen. Thus, the only way by which
it can be made effectual is by providing a button in the EVMs to E
express that right. This is the basic requirement if the lasting values
in a healthy democracy have to be sustained, which the Election
Commission has not only recognised but has also asserted.”
10. The Court considered the stand of the Election Commission
that in the larger interest of promoting democracy, a provision for NOTA F
should be made in the EVMs/ballot papers, for such an option, apart
from promoting free and fair elections in a democracy, will provide an
opportunity to the elector to express his dissent or disapproval against
the contesting candidates and will have the benefit of reducing bogus
voting. Eventually, the Court held that Rules 41(2) and 41(3) and Rule G
49-O of the Rules are ultra vires Section 128 of the 1951 Act and Article
19 of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting.
However, the Court held:-

3
(1993) 4 SCC 234
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A “57. Giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while
protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a
democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to express his
disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by
the political parties. When the political parties will realise that a
large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the
B
candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic
change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of
the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.
58. The direction can also be supported by the fact that in the
existing system a dissatisfied voter ordinarily does not turn up for
C voting which in turn provides a chance to unscrupulous elements
to impersonate the dissatisfied voter and cast a vote, be it a
negative one. Furthermore, a provision of negative voting would
be in the interest of promoting democracy as it would send clear
signals to political parties and their candidates as to what the
D electorate thinks about them.”
[Emphasis added]
11. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the Court directed the
Election Commission to make necessary provision in the ballot papers/
EVMs for another button called “None of the above (NOTA)” so that
E the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any
of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote
while maintaining their right of secrecy.
12. In this context, understanding of the principle laid down in
Kuldip Nayar and others v. Union of India and others4 in that regard
F is quite instructive. Interpreting the words ‘representatives of the States”
used in Articles 80(1)(b), 80(1)(2), 80(4), the Constitution Bench ruled:-
“204. Upon being given their plain meaning, the words
“representatives of the States” in Article 80(1)(b), Article 80(2)
and Article 80(4) must be interpreted to connote persons who are
G elected to represent the State in the Council of States. It is the
election that makes the person elected the “representative”. In
order to be eligible to be elected to the Council of States, a person
need not be a representative of the State beforehand. It is only
when he is elected to represent the State that he becomes a
H 4
(2006) 7 SCC 1
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 89
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

representative of the State. Those who are elected to represent A
the State by the electoral college, which for present purposes
means the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of the
State, are necessarily the “representatives” of the State.”
The aforesaid passage shows the nature of representation in the
Council of States. It is clear as crystal that the nature of the representative B
is different, for he becomes a representative of the State. This is in
contradistinction to an elected candidate who is elected by the voters in
a direct election because he represents a constituency.
13. We may further note with profit that in the said case, the
Court had adverted to secrecy of voting for the election of the Council C
of States. The Court noted that in the wake of “emerging trend of
cross-voting in the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council elections”,
elections “by open ballot” were incorporated. The Court further noted
that the cumulative effect of the amendments to Sections 59, 94 and 128
of the Act brought about by Act 40 of 2003 is that election for filling up
of seats in the Council of States is to be held by open ballot and the D
requirements of maintenance of secrecy of voting is now made subject
to an exception mentioned in the proviso. The Court adverted to the
concept of free and fair elections and noted the contention that the
disclosure of choice or any fear or compulsion or even a political pressure
under a whip goes against the concept of free and fair elections and that E
immunity from such fear or compulsion can be ensured only if the election
is held on the principle of secret ballot.
14. Adverting to various decisions, the larger Bench opined that
the procedure by which an election has to be held should further the
object of free and fair election and as the Parliament noted that in election F
to the Council of States, members elected on behalf of political parties
misuse the secret ballot and cross-vote and there had been breach of
discipline by political parties for collateral and corrupt considerations, it
legislated to provide for an open ballot. The Court further observed that
the principle of secrecy is not an absolute principle though the said principle
is meant to ensure free and fair elections. However, the higher principle G
is free and fair election and purity of election. The larger Bench further
proceeded to state:-
“464. The secrecy of ballot is a vital principle for ensuring free
and fair elections. The higher principle, however, is free and fair
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A elections and purity of elections. If secrecy becomes a source for
corruption then sunlight and transparency have the capacity to
remove it. We can only say that legislation pursuant to a legislative
policy that transparency will eliminate the evil that has crept in
would hopefully serve the larger object of free and fair elections.”
B 15. We may presently refer to the notification issued by the Election
Commission on 24.01.2014. After referring to the PUCL’s judgment and
the doubt expressed with regard to the applicability of the option of NOTA
during elections of Rajya Sabha, the Commission has instructed thus:-
“The Commission has dully considered the matter and it has been
C decided that the NOTA option will also be applicable for elections
to Rajya Sabha. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs that
after the name and particulars of the last candidate on the ballot
paper another panel may be provided and the words “None of the
above (NOTA)” shall be printed therein in the language or
languages in which the ballot paper is printed as per direction
D issued by the Commission in pursuance of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule
22 and Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 30, read with Rule 70 of the Conduct
of Election Rules, 1961.
2. Please bring the above instructions to the notice of the Returning
Officers for Conduct of Elections to the Council of States for
E compliance during the current biennial elections to Rajya Sabha
already announced to fill up the vacancies to be caused in the
month of April 2014 and all future elections to Rajya Sabha.
3. Necessary instruction with regard to marking of ballot paper
for exercising the option of “None of the Above” and the counting
F of votes in view of the above option will be issued shortly.”
16. A further circular has been issued on 12.11.2015 which lays
down thus:-
“2. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that there
have been some cases where electors, having marked Ist
G
preference against one of the candidates put cross mark or
mentioned subsequent preference (2nd, 3rd, etc.) against NOTA,
which have led to rejection of the ballot paper. In the light of such
cases, the Commission has considered the matter afresh and, with
a view to ensuring the compliance of rule 73(2) of the CE Rules
H 1961 and adoption of a uniform approach towards the
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 91
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

requirement of providing for NOTA option and the manner of A
voting in preferential system using single transferable vote, the
Commission has given the following directions for exercising of
NOTA option in elections to Rajya Sabha and State Legislative
Councils:-
(i) Marking against NOTA shall be by way of writing figures 1, 2, B
3, etc. as in the case of marking preference for candidates, i.e in
international form of Indian numerals or in the Roman form or in
any Indian language;
(ii) If preference ‘1’ is marked against NOTA, it shall be treated
as a case of not voting for any of the candidates and such ballot C
shall be treated as invalid, even if ‘1’ is also marked against any
other candidate in addition to being marked against NOTA;
(iii) If 1 st preference is validly marked against one of the
candidates, and 2nd preference is marked against NOTA, such
ballot paper shall be treated as valid for the candidate for whom D
1st preference has been marked, provided there is no other ground
to invalidate it, under rule 73(2). In such case, at the stage of
examining 2nd preference, the ballot paper shall be treated as
exhausted as the 2 nd preference is marked against NOTA.
Similarly, if 1st and 2nd preferences are validly marked against a
candidate each and 3rd preference is marked against NOTA, the E
ballot shall be valid for the first count and for the purposes of the
2nd preference, but, at the stage of examining the 3rd preference,
if such stage comes, the ballot shall be treated as exhausted. These
instructions shall apply for subsequent preferences also.
(iv) If 1st preference and subsequent preferences, if any, are F
validly marked against the candidates and cross/tick is marked
against NOTA, the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid
only on this ground, and the preferences marked against the
candidates shall be considered and counted accordingly.
However, the general provisions of the rules and the Commission’s G
instructions regarding marks that may identify the voter shall
apply in the case of the mark against NOTA option, and if the RO
considers that the mark put therein reasonably points towards
identification of the voter within the meaning of rule 73(2)(d), that
would render the ballot liable to rejection on that ground.”
H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 17. In the instructions to the voters for casting vote in Rajya
Sabha, it has been stated that:-
“5. Out of the candidates shown in the Ballot Paper, if you do not
want to elect any candidate, then in the column “Show your Order
of Preference”, against “NOTA” figure of “1” is required to be
B shown. In the column against “NOTA”, instead of figure “1”,
alternative preference numbers 2, 3, 4 etc. can also be shown.
6. This figure of “1” can be put against the name of only one
candidate or against “NOTA”.”
18. The criticism advanced is that the circulars are not in
C accordance with the procedure envisaged under the 1951 Act and the
Rules. Placing reliance on Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab5
and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others6, it is urged that it is beyond the power of the
Election Commission, the first respondent herein, to introduce NOTA to
D the elections of the members to the Council of States. As we notice, the
Election Commission has treated the pronouncement in PUCL’s case as
its source of power. The decision in PUCL relates to direct elections.
The Court, in fact, has clearly observed that the directions pertain to the
Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies which is constituency based
and grants an option to the voters to exercise the benefit of NOTA. In
E the said decision, emphasis has been laid on universal adult suffrage
conferred on the citizens of India by the Constitution and the entitlement
of a voter to come to the polling booth and decide to vote for any candidate
or to exercise the right not to vote. There has been distinction between
direct and indirect elections. In Kuldip Nayar (supra), the Constitution
F Bench has drawn the distinction by expressing thus:-
“441. Voting at elections to the Council of States cannot be
compared with a general election. In a general election, the electors
have to vote in a secret manner without fear that their votes would
be disclosed to anyone or would result in victimisation. There is
G no party affiliation and hence the choice is entirely with the voter.
This is not the case when elections are held to the Council of
States as the electors are elected Members of the Legislative
Assemblies who in turn have party affiliations.”
5
(1955) 2 SCR 225
6
H (1982) 1 SCC 39
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 93
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

And again:- A
“454. The distinguishing feature between “constituency-based
representation” and “proportional representation” in a
representative democracy is that in the case of the list system of
proportional representation, members are elected on party lines.
They are subject to party discipline. They are liable to be B
expelled for breach of discipline. Therefore, to give effect to
the concept of proportional representation, Parliament can suggest
“open ballot”. In such a case, it cannot be said that “free and
fair elections” would stand defeated by “open ballot”. As
stated above, in a constituency-based election it is the people
who vote whereas in proportional representation it is the C
elector who votes. This distinction is indicated also in the Australian
judgment in R. v. Jones7.In constituency-based representation,
“secrecy” is the basis whereas in the case of proportional
representation in a representative democracy the basis can be
“open ballot” and it would not violate the concept of “free and fair D
elections”, which concept is one of the pillars of democracy.”
19. The aforesaid passages throw immense light on the distinction
between direct and indirect elections and especially on the concept of
indirect election which encompasses proportional representation. There
is voting by open ballot and it has been so introduced to sustain the E
foundational values of party discipline and to avoid any kind of cross
voting thereby ensuring purity in the election process. They have been
treated as core values of democracy and fair election. It is worth to note
that in a voting for members of the Council of States, the nature of
voting by an elector is a grave concern. It is because in such an election,
there is a party whip and the elector is bound to obey the command of F
the party. The party discipline in this kind of election is of extreme
significance, for that is the fulcrum of the existence of political parties.
It is essential in a parliamentary democracy. The thought of cross voting
and corruption is obnoxious in such a voting. In this context, we may
refer with profit to the authority in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and G
others8. In the said case, the question arose relating to the disqualification
of a Member of the State Legislature under Article 191(2) read with the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The two-Judge Bench referred to
7
(1972) 128 CLR 221
8
1994 Supp (2) SCC 641 H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A the decision in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others9 and addressed
the issue of defection covered under paragraphs 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of
the Tenth Schedule. Referring to the said paragraphs, the Court ruled:-
“….The said paragraph provides for disqualification of a member
of a House belonging to a political party “if he has voluntarily
B given up his membership of such political party”. The words
“voluntarily given up his membership” are not synonymous with
“resignation” and have a wider connotation. A person may
voluntarily give up his membership of a political party even though
he has not tendered his resignation from the membership of that
party. Even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership
C an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he
has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to
which he belongs.”
20. Paragraphs 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution read as under:-
D
“1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of
a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for
being a member of the House—
(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political
E party; or
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to
any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or
by any person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, without
obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party,
F person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been
condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen
days from the date of such voting or abstention.
Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,-
(a) an elected member of a House shall be deemed to belong to
G the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate
for election as such member;
(b) a nominated member of a House shall,-

9
1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 95
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

(i) where he is a member of any political party on the date of his A
nomination as such member, be deemed to belong to such political
party;
(ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party of
which he becomes, or, as the case may be, first becomes, a
member before the expiry of six months from the date on which B
he takes his seat after complying with the requirements of article
99 or, as the case may be, article 188.”
21. The appellants therein were disqualified by the Speaker of the
House under the Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Grounds
of Defection) Rules, 1986. Dealing with the aspect of disqualification, C
the Court ruled:-
“A candidate voluntarily gives up his membership and inference
can be drawn from his conduct that he has voluntarily given up
the membership of the political party.”
A distinction has been drawn between resignation and voluntarily D
giving up.
22. It is demonstrable that an elector can be disqualified if he
voluntarily gives up his membership of the political party. It is submitted
by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi that an elector belonging to a particular
party may not voluntarily give up the membership but can exercise his E
choice of NOTA despite his political party setting up a candidate.
According to the learned senior counsel, this creates an anomalous
situation and brings in horse trading, corruption and use of extra
constitutional methods which were sought to be avoided by the introduction
of the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-Second F
Amendment) Act, 1985. It is necessary to mention here that the said
amendment was introduced to eradicate the evil of political defection.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the said amendment provides
thus:-
“The evil of political defections has been a matter of national
G
concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very
foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it.
With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the
President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce

H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This
Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above
assurance.”
On a keen scrutiny of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
the concept of disqualification to rule out defection, it is clear that the
B same is indirectly defeated by the introduction of NOTA.
23. In a democracy, the purity of election is categorically imperative.
The democratic body polity, as has been held in Manoj Narula v. Union
of India10, stipulates that the quintessential idea of democracy is
abhorrent to corruption and laws emphasize on prevalence of genuine
C orderliness, positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity
by constant affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone
of good governance. The purity of democracy does not withstand anything
that has the potential to create an incurable chasm in the backbone of a
democratic setup. The law is meant to eradicate the same. When one
analyses the exercise of choice of NOTA in the voting process of the
D Council of States where open ballot is permissible and secrecy of voting
has no room and further where the discipline of the political party/parties
matters, it is clear that such choice will have a negative impact. An
elector, though a single voter, has a quantified value of his vote and the
surplus votes are transferable. There is existence of a formula for
E determining the value of the vote. The concept of vote being transferable
has a different connotation. It further needs to be stated that a candidate
after being elected becomes a representative of the State and does not
represent a particular constituency. The cumulative effect of all these
aspects clearly conveys that the introduction of NOTA to the election
process for electing members of the Council of States will be an anathema
F to the fundamental criterion of democracy which is a basic feature of
the Constitution. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that
the provisions for introduction of NOTA as conceived by the Election
Commission, the first respondent herein, on the basis of the PUCL
judgment is absolutely erroneous, for the said judgment does not say so.
G We are disposed to think that the decision could not have also said so
having regard to the constitutional provisions contained in Article 80 and
the stipulations provided under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
The introduction of NOTA in such an election will not only run counter
to the discipline that is expected from an elector under the Tenth Schedule
10
(2014) 9 SCC 1
H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 97
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

to the Constitution but also be counterproductive to the basic grammar A
of the law of disqualification of a member on the ground of defection. It
is a well settled principle that what cannot be done directly, cannot be
done indirectly. To elaborate, if NOTA is allowed in the election of the
members to the Council of States, the prohibited aspect of defection
would indirectly usher in with immense vigour.
B
24. We may further add with profit that the purpose of introduction
of NOTA in PUCL’s case is that a provision for negative voting can
send a clear message to the political parties and what a voter thinks
about the candidates in the fray. Thus, the said decision is directly relatable
to a direct election, one man, one vote and one value.
C
25. In this context, we may usefully refer to Article 324 of the
Constitution. It reads thus:-
“324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be
vested in an Election Commission
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation D
of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to
Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections
to the offices of President and Vice President held under this
Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this
Constitution as the Election Commission) E
(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election
Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners,
if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the
appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election
Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in F
that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President
(3) When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed the
Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the
Election Commission
(4) Before each general election to the House of the People and G
to the Legislative Assembly of each State, and before the first
general election and thereafter before each biennial election to
the Legislative Council of each State having such Council, the
President may also appoint after consultation with the Election
Commission such Regional Commissioners as he may consider
H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A necessary to assist the Election Commission in the performance
of the functions conferred on the Commission by clause (1)
(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the
conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election
Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as
B the President may by rule determine; Provided that the Chief
Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except
in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme
Court and the conditions of service of the Chief Election
Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his
appointment: Provided further that any other Election
C Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed
from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election
Commissioner
(6) The President, or the Governor of a State, shall, when so
requested by the Election Commission, make available to the
D Election Commission or to a Regional Commissioner such staff
as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred
on the Election Commission by clause ( 1 )”
26. Interpreting the said Article, the Constitution Bench in Kuldip
Nayar (supra) held:-
E
“427. In this context, we would say that where the law on the
subject is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power for the Election
Commission to act for the avowed purpose of pursuing the goal
of a free and fair election, and in this view it also assumes the role
of an adviser. But the power to make law under Article 327 vests
F in Parliament, which is supreme and so, not bound by such advice.
We would reject the argument by referring to what this Court has
already said in Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) 1 SCC 405 and what
bears reiteration here is that the limitations on the exercise of
“plenary character” of the Election Commission include one to
G the effect that “when Parliament or any State Legislature has
made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the
Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such
provisions”

H
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR v. ELECTION 99
COMMISSION OF INDIA [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

From the aforesaid passage, it is quite clear that the Election A
Commission has to act within the four corners of law made by the
Parliament. That apart, if any direction is issued by this Court interpreting
a provision for furtherance of purity of election, it will be obligatory on
the part of the Commission to act in accordance with the same. The
Commission cannot be allowed to conceive of certain concepts or ideas
B
or, for that matter, think of a different dimension which would not fit into
the legal framework.
27. It can be said without a speck of doubt that the decision taken
by the Election Commission as regards the introduction of NOTA in the
election of the members to the Council of States also runs counter to
what has been stated hereinabove. NOTA will destroy the concept of C
value of a vote and representation and encourage defection that shall
open the doors for corruption which is a malignant disorder. It has to be
remembered that democracy garners its strength from the citizenry trust
which is sustained only on the foundational pillars of purity, integrity,
probity and rectitude and such stronghold can be maintained only by D
ensuring that the process of elections remains unsullied and unpolluted
so that the citadel of democracy stands tall as an impregnable bulwark
against unscrupulous forces. The introduction of NOTA in indirect
elections may on a first glance tempt the intellect but on a keen scrutiny,
it falls to the ground, for it completely ignores the role of an elector in
such an election and fully destroys the democratic value. It may be E
stated with profit that the idea may look attractive but its practical
application defeats the fairness ingrained in an indirect election. More
so where the elector’s vote has value and the value of the vote is
transferrable. It is an abstraction which does not withstand the scrutiny
of, to borrow an expression from Krishna Iyer, J., the “cosmos of F
concreteness”. We may immediately add that the option of NOTA may
serve as an elixir in direct elections but in respect of the election to the
Council of States which is a different one as discussed above, it would
not only undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of
defection and corruption.
28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed G
and the circulars issued by the Election Commission, the first respondent
herein, introducing NOTA in respect of elections to the Council of States
are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Writ Petition allowed. H