The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 24) orally remarked that voting might be required to make compulsory, so that more people turn up in the poll booths to exercise the valuable right of franchise. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions seeking to allow the conduct of elections even if there is only one candidate, so that voters can exercise the right to choose 'None of The Above (NOTA) option. During the hearing, the bench discussed whether NOTA has improved the quality of voting percentage and the quality of candidates. "Sometimes it feels like we need to have some compulsory mechanism, not very harsh, but some compulsory mechanism, to ensure that people go and vote," CJI Kant commented. "At least experience tells me that it is the educated and well-off people who vote less than the economically weaker people," Justice Bagchi commented. CJI Kant said that in rural areas, the day of voting is seen as a day of celebration. "Women get a sigh of relief from their other works on that day, and they go in groups, singing songs, to the poll booths," CJI said. Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioners, submitted that giving NOTA consequences will persuade more people to vote. At present, NOTA has no consequence, and therefore, there is no incentive to choose that option. The petitioners are challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act ("RP Act"), which provides for direct election of candidates in uncontested elections. The petitioners argue that even if there is only candidate, election should be held, and if the candidate secures less votes than NOTA, then the election must be cancelled. Datar and Bhushan submitted that a new trend has emerged, whereby candidates are made to withdraw nominations, so that only one candidate remains in the fray. They argued that in most cases, such withdrawal is preceded by threats. They termed it as a "dangerous trend", and urged the Court to take judicial notice of it. Bhushan submitted that if elections are held even if there is only one candidate, NOTA might win more votes. CJI Kant also said that if a candidate is winning only 35% votes, it means that 65% persons are voting against him. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani opposed the petitions, submitting that it is for the Parliament to decide the course of action regarding electoral reforms. AG also argued that the petitioners are arguing on the basis of "too many hypotheticals." Justice Bagchi however disagreed that it was a "hypothetical situation". "It is not hypothetical Mr.Attorney. It is possible. It can result in a contest between uncontested candidate and NOTA." Ultimately, the matter was adjourned for further hearing. The Court was hearing the petitions filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Shiv Khera. In a previous hearing, the Court had explored the idea of mandating a minimum threshold of vote share for a candidate to be declared as a winner, and sought the stand of the Union. Case Title: VIDHI CENTRE FOR LEGAL POLICY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024, SHIV KHERA v.UNION OF INDIA WP(c) No.252/2024