What is Rule 49-O in Elections

Dear Friends,
Very often we receive mails or blog posts about Article/Rule 49-O. We thought it appropriate to clarify the issue. The following E-mail was in circulation recently:

“DEAR ALL

 Article 49-O of the Constitution

Did you know that there is a system in our constitution, as per the 1969 act, in section ’49-O’ that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the presiding election officer that he doesn’t want to vote anyone!

Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious leaders have never disclosed it. This is called ’49-O’.

Why should you go and say ‘I VOTE NOBODY’… because, in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received ’49-O’ votes more than 123, then that polling will be cancelled and will have to be re-polled .

Not only that, but the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them .

This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way, of our whole political system… it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not revealed such a feature to the public….

Please spread this news to as many as you know… Seems to be a wonderful weapon against corrupt parties in India… show your power, expressing your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than voting… so don’t miss your chance. So either vote, or vote not to vote (vote 49-O) and pass this info on…
 
‘Please forward this mail to as many as possible, so that we, the people of India , can really use this power to save our nation’. Use your voting right for a better INDIA “
 

This is a popular misconception that Rule 49 O empowers the electorate to reject the candidates. It is a very benign provision which simply gives voter a right to register his/her refusal to vote. It does not affect the results. If we have to make it effective, we will have to fight for it.
Let us provide some background details:

Several individuals and organizations have demanded that there should be a provision enabling a voter to reject all the candidates in the constituency if he/she does not find them suitable. In the voting using the conventional ballot paper and ballot boxes, an elector can drop the ballot paper without marking his vote against any of the candidates, if he chooses so. However, in the voting using the Electronic Voting Machines, such a facility is not available to the voter. Although, Rule 49 O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides that an elector may refuse to vote after he has been identified and necessary entries made in the Register of Electors and the marked copy of the electoral roll. The Rule 49 O reads as following:

THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961
49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.—If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

However, in the present system, your denial to vote does not affect the results. Your refusal to vote ( or the blank vote) is not taken into consideration to declare the results. In the voting machine there is no option of ‘None of the above’ or ‘Blank’. However, in conventional ballot paper, if a voter does not mark his/her choice, this ballot is simply rejected during counting ( Read the Rule 56.3(2b) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961).

The Election Commission Commission has requested  that the law should be amended to specifically provide for negative / neutral voting. For this purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended adding a proviso that in the ballot paper and the particulars on the ballot unit, in the column relating to names of candidates, after the entry relating to the last candidate, there shall be a column “None of the above”, to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he chooses so. Such a proposal was earlier made by the Commission in 2001 (vide letter dated 10.12.2001). A petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties seeking such a provision filed at the time of the recent general elections is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Youth For Equality has also pressed for the same and very soon we will fight this issue in the Supreme Court.
If you want to know about Electoral process and various reforms, visit http://www.youthforequality.com and visit :Electoral Reforms” page.

Related News from archives:

SC rejects PIL for voters’ right to reject aspirants
 PTI  04.02.07

New Delhi, February 4: The Supreme Court has rejected a PIL, which sought adequate rights to a voter to reject candidates in an election if the contestants were not found suitable to represent the constituency or address their grievances. A Bench of Justices B N Aggarwal and P P Naolekar refused to entertain the petition on the ground that the petitioner can wait till the Government takes a decision on certain electoral reforms suggested by the Election Commission. Citing the grisly serial killings of Nithari as the latest instance of a phlegmatic political system, the petitioner, Ashok Agarwal, a resident of Noida, pleaded for a direction to the EC to include a specific column in the ballot paper to enable a voter to reject the candidates. He pointed out that though the Commission had made such a recommendation to the Government in October 2001, no such measure had been taken so far. Agarwal contended that such an option should be available to a voter as only then it would lead to some sort of self-introspection among the candidates. The petitioner argued that in the absence of such a provision in the Representation of People Act, candidates had started treating rather casually victory and defeat as they were aware that the voters had little choice about the political parties in successive elections. Under rule 49 (O), of the Election Rules, a voter may refuse to vote after making his entry into the polling booths, but such refusal has to be attested by the presiding officer of the polling booth.
Such a provision, Agarwal submitted was violative of the secret ballot system prevailing in the country. In other words, it was pointed out that if a voter’s refusal to record the vote is attested by the presiding officer, then he or she was vulnerable to threats from the contestants. However, the Bench did not find merit in the argument and suggested that the petitioner could wait till the Government takes a decision on the electoral reforms.

SC notice to AG on negative voting
Election Commission backs move

New Delhi, January 24,2005
The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Attorney-General of India, seeking his response to a proposal of the Election Commission (EC) on the provision of “negative” voting in the Representation of People’s Act, giving the right to a voter to register his “rejection” vote against the contesting candidates if none is found to be of his choice. A Bench of Chief Justice R. C. Lahoti and Mr Justice G. P. Mathur directed the EC and People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), which filed a petition on the issue, to place on record supporting material to show that the system of “negative” voting was prevalent in any other democracy.
Though the issue was brought before the court by the PUCL, the EC fully supported its petition and told the Bench that it had written letters to the Centre twice on December 10, 2001 and July 5, 2004 favouring an amendment to the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) to this effect.
The Court directed EC counsel S. Murlidhar and PUCL counsel Rajinder Sachar, a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, to place on record the material to show in what manner the system of “negative” voting could be implemented and how it was working in other countries. Expressing concern over criminalisation of politics, the PUCL in its petition, filed earlier, had said that if a voter found that the candidates contesting the poll either for Parliament or the assembly from a particular constituency were not of his choice, he should have the option to register a protest “negative” vote so that it could be determined how many people had rejected the victor.
Meanwhile, the BJP today said that the issue of providing voters the “right to reject” is a debatable issue .
“It is a debatable issue and there should be a thorough debate among the cross-section of people… Since implementation of such a provision falls under the domain of the executive, there is a need for political consensus,” BJP spokesperson and former Law Minister said.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050125/main3.htm

Court admits plea on casting `negative vote’

NEW DELHI, APRIL 11. The Supreme Court today admitted a petition seeking a right for the voter to cast a “negative vote” in an election by pressing the “none of the candidates” option in the electronic voting machine.
A Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti, and Justice G.P. Mathur, admitted the petition from the People’s Union for Civil Liberties seeking such a right and posted the case for final hearing after the summer vacation.
Counsel for the Election Commission, S. Murlidhar, produced documents to show how this negative option was prevalent in other countries and in what manner the system was working there.
The Attorney General, Milon Banerjee, said he would produce some more materials on this issue. Senior counsel for the PUCL, Rajinder Sachar, wanted the matter to be heard expeditiously.
The Bench posted the case for hearing after summer vacation.
The PUCL petition said that at present, the voter who wanted to exercise the right not to vote had to tell the returning officer, who would register his name and address in an election book, thus violating the code of secret ballot. It wanted the Commission to make a specific provision in the EVM to enable the voter to cast the `none of the above’ option.
In its response, the Election Commission said that it had written to the Centre in 2001 and again in 2004 suggesting amendments to the Representation of the People Act so that a provision could be made in the ballot papers and the EVMs allowing casting of negative vote.
The Commission said that providing such an option would send clear signals to the political parties and their candidates what “the electorate thinks about them.”
Further, it said, “such a provision, apart from serving the primary purpose of providing an opportunity to a dissatisfied elector to express his dissent against the contesting candidates will have the incidental benefit of reducing bogus voting.”

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/04/12/stories/2005041201241200.htm