Since its inclusion, first, under rule 49-o of Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, and again as a symbolic implementation in 2013, NOTA was idealised as a powerful tool to exercise the right to reject. Overestimating its potential, the Supreme Court in its NOTA judgment became too short-sighted. While the top Court included NOTA as a working option, it simultaneously made NOTA vote incompetent. Disha Pathak details the inefficacy of NOTA and its limited potential to bring any real transformation.
Even after Section 377 was decriminalised in India, homosexuality continues to be a taboo subject. And the LGBTQIA+ community continues to face social ostracization, one that is offered from within and outside the family. The present commentary by Disha Pathak briefly discusses society’s obsolete lens on homosexuality and the judiciaries’ own flaws in realising the 2018 Judgement.