By Japan K Pathak

Ahmedabad: Rajya Sabha candidate Ahmed Patel today raised question over permitting None Of The Above(NOTA) option for Rajya Sabha election in Gujarat after notification.

First Rajya Sabha election was postponed,Second NOTA was permitted post notification. Reasons best known to the Election Commission

— Ahmed Patel (@ahmedpatel) August 1, 2017

Since yesterday, the media in Gujarat is making noise in such a way that NOTA has been introduced in Rajya Sabha elections for the first time in upcoming polls in Gujarat scheduled to take place on August 8.

That’s not true.

NOTA was proposed to be introduced in Rajya Sabha elections in year 2013.

In 2014, Congress MLA in Andhra Pradesh, Daggubati Venkateshwara Rao became the first legislator to avail None Of The Above (NOTA) option which was introduced for the first time in the history of Rajya Sabha elections. That was February 2014. Rao, a member of Andhra Pradesh assembly was husband of union minister Daggubati Purandeswari.(IANS report published in DNA)

NOTA was implemented in the light of the Supreme Court judgement dated 27.9.2013. Relevant communication by Election Commission of India(ECI) on this subject is given in this link http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/ImpIns24jan_12022014.pdf

Due to some misunderstanding related to implementation and interpretation of NOTA option in Rajya Sabha election, the Election Commission of India in its 12 November 2015 communication made some clarifications and issued revised instructions. Related communication is available on this link http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/ImpIns1_18112015.pdf

In another communication dated 22 January 2016, Election Commission issued another order regarding NOTA implementation and asked that NOTA symbol should be put on the ballot papers. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/ImpInsNota_27052016.pdf

NOTA option has been in use in all Rajya Sabha elections in which polling take place. It is by-default and uniform for all Rajya Sabha elections since implementation(2014). NOTA is not new or specific to Gujarat Rajya Sabha polls.

The reason why it sounds new in Gujarat is that the State has elected all Rajya Sabha MPs unopposed in last twenty years or so. Actual contest and polling for Rajya Sabha seat has not happened in this State at least after implementation of NOTA in ballet papers.

So it is incorrect to say that NOTA has been permitted after issuance of notification for Rajya Sabha polls in Gujarat(scheduled to take place on August 8). It is by-default mechanism since 2014(revised in 2015). There was Rajya Sabha seat election last year in several states. NOTA was there on ballot papers in all these states.

Then why this uproar over NOTA?

Well, yesterday some media persons in Gandhinagar contacted a government official responsible for holding Rajya Sabha polling in Gujarat. They wanted something new to publish regarding Rajya Sabha election. In the course of talk, the secretary very normally mentioned that NOTA column will also be there in ballet papers. Reporters put this story as Breaking News across local news channels, because they had no idea about NOTA implementation in Rajya Sabha(which was there since 2014).

Congress too jumped in. Initially last evening Congress leader Arjun Modhwadia said that party will ask MLAs not to choose NOTA option and only vote for Ahmed Patel. But today Congress members created uproar over NOTA in Gujarat Rajya Sabha election citing conspiracy theories.

It’s not understandable why Congress should behave in such naive manner. NOTA is here since 2014. And it is for all parties. It is not that BJP is shilded and protected against NOTA and the rule is applicable only for Congress. No, that’s not the case. The rule of game is well established in well advance and it is equal for all.

जब 'चतुर बनिया' का नोट काम नहीं आया तो नोटा ले आए।
राज्य सभा चुनाव में नोटा ?
सचमुच चुनाव आयोग #BJP का दलाल बन गया है।
शरारत की हद हो गई है।

— Sanjay Nirupam (@sanjaynirupam) August 1, 2017

Appendix:

Now some interesting facts about implementation of NOTA in Rajya Sabha polls:

( You can also find them here http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/ImpIns1_18112015.pdf)

1. Marking against NOTA shall be by way of writing figures 1,2,3, etc. as in the case of marking preference for candidates, i.e. intrnational form of Indian numerals or in the Roman form or in any Indian language;

2. 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 shall be teated as invalid, even if 1 is also marked against any other candidate in addition to being marked against NOTA;

3. If 1st 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 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 2nd 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 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.

4. If 2st preference and subsequent preferences, if any, are 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 candiadtes shall be considered and counted accordingly. However, the general provisions of the rules and the Commissions instructions regarding marks that may identify the voter shall apply in the Commission’s instructions regarding marks that may identifythe voter shall apply in the case of the mark against NOTA option, and if the RO considers that the mark put therein resonably 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.