The Bombay High Court recently rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting the Election Commission of India (ECI) to promote awareness among the public regarding the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option available on electronic voting machines (EVMs).

A division bench comprising Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM Joshi observed that the petitioner, Suhas Wankhede, had previously filed a similar PIL, and the court had already addressed the matter adequately.

“We find that the Election Commission has already come out with a manual on Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), which was published in July 2020. The SVEEP Strategy 2022-2025 (4) was also published…Having considered the above factors and the steps taken by the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, and the fact that this Petitioner had filed an identical Petition earlier, this PIL Petition is dismissed”, the court further observed.

In the PIL, the petitioner, identified as a PhD student, expressed concerns regarding the Election Commission of India's efforts to educate voters about electronic voting machines (EVMs) and the use of the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option. The petitioner urged the ECI to appoint a brand ambassador and initiate a campaign specifically focused on promoting awareness and understanding of the NOTA option.

The court referenced the petitioner's prior PIL, in which a detailed order was issued on October 14, 2019, subsequent to hearing the petitioner's arguments.

On that occasion, the court acknowledged that the State Election Commission had undertaken adequate measures to educate voters about the NOTA option, in accordance with the directives issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court noted that the concerns raised by the petitioner had been effectively addressed in the previous PIL, thereby fulfilling the purpose of seeking intervention from the court. As a result, the earlier PIL had been disposed of.

The court determined that the current plea presented identical arguments and contentions as the earlier one, wherein the petitioner accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of contravening the directives of the Supreme Court. The petitioner referenced the same judgment as in the earlier case to support their claims.

The court noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had furnished information regarding numerous initiatives it had implemented to enhance awareness about the NOTA option. These initiatives encompassed awareness campaigns conducted via mobile demonstration vans, electoral literacy programs held at various venues, advertisements in prominent national newspapers, dissemination of voter guides, and awareness endeavors following the deadline for candidate withdrawals.

The court examined a pamphlet titled "Chunav Ka Parv, Desh Ka Garv, Lok Sabha Election 2024," provided by the Election Commission of India (ECI), which functioned as a voters' guide. The pamphlet encompassed details about the voting process, including the utilization of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the availability of the NOTA option. Additionally, it underscored the efforts undertaken by the ECI to educate voters and stressed the significance of voting, as observed by the court.

The court pointed out that the concerns raised by the petitioner had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the People's Union for Civil Liberties case. The Supreme Court had instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to incorporate the NOTA option in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and conduct awareness campaigns to educate the public. Taking into account the actions taken by both the ECI and the State Election Commission, as well as the petitioner's prior PIL, the court dismissed the current PIL petition.

The court opted not to impose costs on the petitioner for filing a second petition on the same issue, considering the petitioner's status as a PhD scholar. However, the court instructed the registry to thoroughly examine any future petitions submitted by the petitioner concerning similar issues before accepting them for registration.

Case no. – Public Interest Litigation No. 33 of 2024

Case Title – Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & Others