In this article Supreme Court Ponders NOTA for One-Horse Elections why SC said should there be NOTA even for one candidate lets see
Picture this: you walk into your polling booth, excited to cast your vote, and there’s literally just one name staring back at you. The other candidates either got disqualified or dropped out. What do you do? Just go with whoever’s left standing? Well, that’s exactly what happened in Surat during the recent elections, and it’s got the Supreme Court thinking hard about something pretty fundamental.
The Supreme Court is now seriously considering whether voters should get the NOTA — None of the Above — option even when there’s only one candidate in the race. Now, that’s unusual for our democracy, isn’t it?
Here’s how things stand right now. When NOTA was introduced back in 2013, it was supposed to let voters reject all candidates if they found them unsatisfactory. Great idea in theory. But here’s the catch — if there’s only one person running, NOTA just… disappears. Poof. The Election Commission basically says, “Well, you’ve got no choice, so why give you a choice?”
That doesn’t sit well with motivational speaker Shiv Khera, who filed a petition with the Supreme Court in April. He contended that even if there is a single candidate, there should be an election and the voter should have the option NOTA. “In Surat where nobody else has appeared, they are forced to go with whoever the candidate is,” he argued. The Supreme Court, on Friday, April 26, agreed to examine a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (EC) to frame guidelines or rules, for elections in which none of the contesting candidates individually surpass the None of The Above (NOTA) category.
Think about it — what kind of message does it send when voters are essentially told “take it or leave it” in a democracy? The petitioners argue that NOTA in single-candidate races could be a powerful wake-up call for political parties. If a significant chunk of voters choose “none of the above” over the only available option, that’s telling politicians something important about public sentiment.
Some state election commissions have already started treating NOTA more seriously. In 2018, Maharashtra State Election Commission (MSEC) said that if NOTA received the maximum votes in an assembly constituency, then none of the contesting candidates will be declared elected and fresh elections will be held. Similar moves happened in Delhi and other states. These aren’t just symbolic gestures — they’re saying that if people overwhelmingly reject what’s on offer, the whole process needs a do-over.
But critics have legitimate concerns too. They worry about the practical nightmare this could create. What if NOTA keeps winning in re-elections? Do we keep conducting polls until someone finally beats the “reject all” option? And then there’s the cost factor. Elections aren’t cheap, and conducting fresh polls every time NOTA wins could drain public resources. Some argue it might just encourage frivolous rejections rather than genuine democratic participation.
The bigger question here goes beyond technicalities though. Democracy isn’t just about having elections — it’s about having meaningful choice. Even when there’s technically only one candidate left standing, giving people the power to say “this isn’t good enough” maintains the essence of what voting should be about.
Currently, the ECI, in July last year, issued a letter stating that even if, in an extreme case the number of votes against NOTA is more than the number of votes secured by the candidates, the candidate who secures the largest number of votes among the contesting candidates shall be declared to be elected. Basically, NOTA votes don’t actually change anything. They’re counted but ignored when it comes to the final result.
That feels like democracy with training wheels on, doesn’t it? You get to express your dissatisfaction, but it doesn’t really matter in the end.
The Supreme Court’s examination of this issue signals something important. The bench observed that the petitioner was seeking to improve the law from the 2013 judgement which introduced NOTA. This isn’t about scrapping what exists — it’s about making it actually meaningful.
Whether the Court decides to allow NOTA in single-candidate races or not, the very fact that this question is being seriously debated shows how our democracy keeps evolving. Because at the end of the day, the right to choose should include the right to choose “none of these” — even when there’s apparently no choice at all.
