The laws only prevent people from knowing about it. The right to vote requires government to take a positive action — to hold free and fair elections, Norris noted.
The right to freedom of assembly, on the other hand, requires government to maintain a negative action — not to shut down a lawful gathering. Norris cited a past Supreme Court ruling that the government generally cannot gag people from speaking but it is not obligated to give them a megaphone. Rodriguez had access to the platform of voting but was claiming a restriction on the content he was allowed to express on the platform.
An election was designed for selecting who will sit in the Commons and not as a means of expressing whether any of the candidates are deemed worthy, Norris said. Rodriguez could express his opinion about the candidates in the last election, the government is not required to furnish the one he would prefer. While I have found that there is no genuine issue for trial, this is not to say that this case did not raise issues of public importance.
On the contrary On the contrary, it raised serious issues concerning freedom of expression under the Charter and democracy.
None of the above (India) - Wikipedia
Some cheekily raised their flat, close palm, to indicate that they had chosen Congress candidate Milind Deora. Still, some voters offered insight as to why the option might be popular in Mumbai South. Shasheer Aman, an year-old taxi driver, said some people might think voting NOTA is a way not to take sides. Or maybe spoil your ballot?