People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2004)

Facts :-
The PUCL, a civil rights organization, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rules
41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. These provisions required a voter who
decided not to vote for any candidate to have their decision recorded by the presiding officer, thereby
compromising the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioner argued that this violated the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Issue : Whether the right to vote includes the right to reject all candidates, and if so, whether this right should be recognized and
protected under the Indian Constitution.

Legal Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined whether the right not to vote, or to reject all candidates, is
a facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court acknowledged that while
the right to vote is a statutory right, the decision to vote or not vote for any candidate after evaluating their
credentials is a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court emphasized that maintaining the
secrecy of the ballot is essential for free and fair elections, which form part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. It held that the existing provisions, by not maintaining secrecy for those who choose not to
vote for any candidate, infringed upon this fundamental right.

Decision:
The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to provide a “None of the Above”
(NOTA) option on electronic voting machines and ballot papers, allowing voters to express their
disapproval of all candidates while maintaining the secrecy of their decision. This landmark judgment
recognized the right to reject as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,
thereby empowering voters and promoting democratic values.