The Bombay High Court has taken a significant step in a case concerning voter rights, directing a petitioner to prepare concise notes and written arguments. The case challenges the practice of declaring winners in local body elections without a vote when candidates are unopposed, arguing it strips voters of their right to choose None of the Above (NOTA).
Court Directs Petitioner to File Submissions
On Tuesday, the court instructed the petitioner, Suhas Wankhede, a resident of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to file his short notes by the next hearing scheduled for January 27. Wankhede had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking judicial intervention to ensure the proper enforcement of the NOTA option during unopposed elections.
The core grievance in the PIL is that the State Election Commission (SEC), by declaring uncontested winners without conducting an actual poll, effectively nullifies a voter's fundamental right to reject all candidates through NOTA. The petition expresses deep concern over a system that adopts a "walkover approach," which could encourage staged withdrawals of candidates.
The Heart of the Legal Challenge
The PIL contends that the SEC acts mechanically in making uncontested declarations, which "irreversibly extinguishes voter choice and dissent." It seeks a directive to include the NOTA option across all local body elections, even when only one candidate is contesting unopposed. This would treat NOTA as a 'fictional electoral candidate,' a concept the SEC itself acknowledged in 2018 for urban civic polls.
Wankhede informed the court that he had written to the SEC after it published the schedule for elections to 246 municipal councils and 42 nagar panchayats, which went to polls on December 2. The PIL emphasizes the constitutional responsibility of the SEC to ensure fair and transparent local body elections. It argues that if votes for NOTA outnumber the lone candidate, the rules should mandate a re-poll.
Larger Issue Pending Before Supreme Court
This issue is part of a broader national legal debate. A similar matter regarding the denial of the NOTA option in uncontested elections is currently pending before the Supreme Court. That PIL, filed by the NGO Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, challenges the direct election of Lok Sabha candidates in uncontested scenarios.
In an August 2025 hearing on that pending PIL, the Supreme Court had asked the Election Commission of India to clarify whether voters can indeed be denied the NOTA option when an election is uncontested. The Bombay HC case now brings this critical question of electoral democracy and the right to dissent to the forefront for Maharashtra's local governance bodies.
