 "You cannot take the voter as a dummy: Sanjay Parikh")
Sanjay Parikh, lawyer for People' s Union for Civil Liberties, or PUCL, is a challenger of status quo who often has the Union of India as an opponent in court. In 2003, he won a ruling that candidates for the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies have to mandatorily declare their assets and criminal records, if any. On Friday, the PUCL won for Indian voters the right to say none of the above (NOTA) when choosing their political representative. He spoke to Aparna Kalra. Edited excerpts:
When did you first file the NOTA petition?
In 2004. Already a letter that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Krishnamurthy had written was there, that right of none of the above should be recognised in the Representation of Peoples Act and identity of the voter be kept a secret. This right is there - you can come out of the polling booth and sign a register saying you don't back any candidate, but your identity is not secret.
What were your reasons for this public interest suit?
We won the mandatory declaration of assets by candidates' case in 2003. But if there is no option to say no, even after the knowledge of the background of a person, a voter does not have the option to reject them.
So, in 2004 we filed this case. Justice Sachar was the senior person who argued, I assisted him in arguments.
Our argument is that you cannot take the voter as a dummy. He thinks: Is this a good candidate? If all three are not good, a button will be provided to say I don't want any.
But please understand. It is neither rejection nor a negative vote, as it is being called. I have the right to say yes, I have the right to say no. You cannot take away my right to say no.
The implementation will be quick. The election commission has said it will not be difficult to give a slot in the electronic voting machine for NOTA. No expenditure will be there, it can be done in the November elections.
What is the next case you are on?
I don't know. There are so many cases. But journalists are asking me, if a candidate gets 30 per cent votes, but 50 per cent say NOTA, and this candidate wins, how can it be a majority decision. So, we might look into that.
The simple solution is parties should introspect. Bring good people, have good governance. Otherwise, it will be one judgement after another.
When did you first file the NOTA petition?
In 2004. Already a letter that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Krishnamurthy had written was there, that right of none of the above should be recognised in the Representation of Peoples Act and identity of the voter be kept a secret. This right is there - you can come out of the polling booth and sign a register saying you don't back any candidate, but your identity is not secret.
Also Read
The right should be made effective, we said. The identity of the voter should not be disclosed.
What were your reasons for this public interest suit?
We won the mandatory declaration of assets by candidates' case in 2003. But if there is no option to say no, even after the knowledge of the background of a person, a voter does not have the option to reject them.
So, in 2004 we filed this case. Justice Sachar was the senior person who argued, I assisted him in arguments.
Our argument is that you cannot take the voter as a dummy. He thinks: Is this a good candidate? If all three are not good, a button will be provided to say I don't want any.
But please understand. It is neither rejection nor a negative vote, as it is being called. I have the right to say yes, I have the right to say no. You cannot take away my right to say no.
The implementation will be quick. The election commission has said it will not be difficult to give a slot in the electronic voting machine for NOTA. No expenditure will be there, it can be done in the November elections.
What is the next case you are on?
I don't know. There are so many cases. But journalists are asking me, if a candidate gets 30 per cent votes, but 50 per cent say NOTA, and this candidate wins, how can it be a majority decision. So, we might look into that.
The simple solution is parties should introspect. Bring good people, have good governance. Otherwise, it will be one judgement after another.