Supreme Court of India Calls for Strong Mechanism to Encourage Mandatory Voting; Makes Key Observations on NOTA

New Delhi, February 25, 2026 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the need for a robust mechanism to make voting effectively mandatory in order to strengthen Indian democracy. The court observed that a non-punitive system encouraging compulsory voting could lead to higher voter turnout, the emergence of better candidates, and eventually render the NOTA (None of the Above) option irrelevant.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Court’s Observations on NOTA

The bench noted that the NOTA option was introduced to encourage voter participation and to push political parties to field better candidates. However, after nearly a decade of experience, the court observed that only a small percentage of voters opt for NOTA.

The judges suggested that if a suitable framework were devised to encourage greater participation in elections—without imposing penalties—it could enhance democratic accountability and reduce reliance on protest voting.

The court also remarked that it is often educated and affluent citizens who abstain from voting in large numbers, unlike rural voters who treat polling day as a democratic festival.

What Is the Case About?

The PIL sought a direction that in constituencies where only one candidate is contesting, NOTA should be treated as a competing candidate. This, the petitioner argued, would help determine whether voters genuinely support the sole candidate.

The bench clarified that for NOTA to be treated as a candidate, Parliament would have to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Arguments Presented

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that treating NOTA as a candidate could deter moneyed and influential contestants from forcing rivals out of the electoral fray, thereby promoting fairer competition.

However, Attorney General R. Venkataramani questioned the maintainability of the PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution, noting that the right to vote is not a fundamental right. He argued that judicial intervention in amending electoral laws would encroach upon Parliament’s legislative domain.

“The judiciary should not decide what amendments are to be made in the Representation of the People Act. It is for Parliament to determine whether there is any deficiency in the law that requires correction,” the Attorney General submitted.

Government’s Stand

In its affidavit, the government opposed the plea, stating that NOTA is neither a person nor a duly nominated candidate under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, it cannot be legally treated as a candidate.

The affidavit further clarified that NOTA is merely an option available to voters to express disapproval and does not possess a legal identity that fits within the statutory definition of a “candidate.”

Broader Democratic Debate

The court’s remarks have reignited debate on electoral reforms in India. While making voting mandatory remains a contentious proposition, the bench’s emphasis on strengthening democratic participation signals growing judicial concern over declining urban voter turnout and the need for systemic reforms.

The matter is expected to be heard further as the court continues examining the constitutional and legislative dimensions surrounding NOTA and voter participation.