Supreme Court to Decide If Candidates Can Be Declared Elected Without Polling Under RP Act
Supreme Court to examine a PIL questioning the provision that allows candidates to be declared elected without voting when elections are uncontested, while the Centre flagged concerns over courts being approached before the executive
SC examined the constitutional validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, which permits unopposed candidates to be declared elected without polling
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a public interest litigation filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which permits a candidate to be declared elected unopposed if no other nomination is found valid, without any voting taking place.
The matter was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta raised concerns over the increasing trend of policy-oriented PILs being directly brought before constitutional courts. While clarifying that he was not questioning the credentials of the petitioner organisation, the Solicitor General remarked that many such petitions are founded on academic studies and novel ideas which, in his view, ought to be first placed before the executive.
“Someone comes with a brilliant idea, a good idea, and files a PIL. I am putting a question to myself whether, if you have a good idea, you should first approach the government. If a solution is not found, then you can come to the Court,” Mehta submitted. He added that in matters involving electoral policy, it would be beneficial for the Court to have the assistance of the other branches of government.
Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani endorsed the Solicitor General’s submissions, observing that an increasing number of PILs on policy issues are bypassing the executive altogether and are being placed directly before the judiciary.
“I completely endorse what the Solicitor General has said. Many PILs are coming straight to the Court, without the executive branch being approached first,” the Attorney General submitted.
After hearing the submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the Court would consider the matter in detail at a later stage and directed that the PIL be listed on a non-miscellaneous day for substantive hearing.
Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act provides that where only one candidate is duly nominated in an election, the Returning Officer shall declare such candidate elected without conducting a poll. The Vidhi Centre’s petition raises constitutional concerns over this provision, arguing that it undermines the voter’s right to participate in the electoral process by dispensing with voting altogether in cases of uncontested elections.
The case is expected to be taken up for a fuller hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned provision and the broader implications for democratic participation.
In August the Court had said it will examine whether the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option should be made available to voters even when only a single candidate stands uncontested in elections.
Justice Kant had noted that while the law permits automatic victory in such cases, it fails to account for a scenario where voters may disapprove of the only candidate in the fray. Shouldn’t they still have the right to register that disapproval? he asked, pointing to the potential democratic deficit in denying voters the choice of NOTA in such situations.
Calling it a "very interesting question" warranting judicial consideration, Justice Kant said that allowing NOTA in these rare elections could at least symbolically protect voters' autonomy.
However, Attorney General R. Venkataramani pushed back, terming the suggestion of enforcing NOTA in uncontested polls as “non-plausible” in the Indian context.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI) had told the court that NOTA has never determined the result of an election so far, even though in some cases it garnered more votes than losing candidates. Still, he assured that the EC would comply with any legal direction from the court.
Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay had also raised a hypothetical concern: What if NOTA receives more votes than the sole candidate? And what if the same happens in a re-election?
In its affidavit, the ECI had emphasized how infrequently such situations arise. It informed the court that only nine uncontested elections have occurred in Lok Sabha history since 1951, with just one instance since 1991. Given this rarity, the Commission argued, any move to give NOTA legal effect in uncontested polls would require legislative amendments to the Representation of the People Act and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
Case Title: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy vs. Union Of India And Anr
Hearing Date: December 18, 2025
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi