UP Panchayat Polls: Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking 'NOTA' Option & Candidate Names On Ballot Papers

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the order on the PIL plea moved by Sunil Kumar Maurya, who is a practising advocate and a permanent resident of District Gonda.

The Bench granted the respondents four weeks to file a counter-affidavit and allowed the petitioner two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is to be listed thereafter.

The PIL plea, filed through advocates Abhishek Yadav, Devendra Pratap Singh, Mohammad Taha Amir and Dhar Pandey, argues that a significant disparity exists in the Uttar Pradesh panchayat polls, where there is no option of 'NOTA'.

The plea contends that, unlike the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or even the Urban Local Body (Nagar Nikay) elections in the state, the Panchayat elections do not provide the option of NOTA.

Furthermore, the petition points out that, in these rural elections, the names of candidates are not printed on the ballot papers. Instead, only symbols are printed, which creates an 'arbitrary' classification between urban and rural voters, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petition refers to the Supreme Court's judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013), where it was held that the Right to Vote includes the Right not to Vote (negative voting). In this case, the top court had directed the Election Commission to provide the NOTA option on EVMs and ballot papers.

Arguing that NOTA is the only mechanism to record dissent while maintaining secrecy, the plea further states that by denying this option, the authorities are effectively forcing a voter who wishes to reject all candidates to either abstain from voting or violate secrecy regulations.

The plea also records an admission by the State Election Commission (Respondent No. 2) in response to an RTI application filed by the petitioner. In a reply dated August 20, 2025, the Commission reportedly admitted that there are no NOTA options on ballot papers for panchayat elections.

According to the petition, the Commission cited the need to issue a high volume of ballot papers (55-60 crores) within a short period between symbol allotment and polling, and the difficulty of designing ballots when names are included.

Challenging this stance, the petitioner has submitted that administrative or logistical difficulties cannot be a ground to deny the fundamental right of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the statutory right to a free and fair election.

The plea terms the respondents' reason that printing names and NOTA is "legally unsustainable".

The petition further argues that the absence of candidate names creates confusion, particularly when multiple candidates have similar-looking symbols. It argues that printing only symbols "deprives the voter of clarity, forcing them to vote blindly".

Against this backdrop, the petition prays for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the NOTA option and print the names of candidates alongside their allotted symbols in future elections to uphold the democratic rights of voters in Uttar Pradesh.