Many see the Supreme Court's directive to the Election Commission of India to add a "none of the above" option on the voting ballot as a precursor to a revolution that would place voters at the heart of democracy. The voters now have the right to reject candidates, but they still don't have a responsibility to do so, making it obsolete and reducing it to a tool for expressing displeasure with no reformatory repercussions that would modify or better the state of Indian politics. Furthermore, one of the main justifications cited by the court for adopting NOTA was to increase openness and flexibility, allowing for rejection without abstaining from voting. Many concerns and suspicions have been raised as a result of the decision. This article attempts to revisit the Apex Court's ruling on the issue of voting decision secrecy, going a step further by including cleansing of criminalization and increased voter participation, thereby attempting to bring a positive restraint and the spirit of the Constitution under the Right to Expression in India's election system. We'll try to figure out how the NOTA option works in other nations and determine if it's legitimate or invalid. Understanding the ground realities and common misconceptions regarding NOTA will be aided by a detailed explanation of the decision and its true consequences in the modern election system. The legal, moral, and social ambiguities surrounding NOTA suggest that it has a gloomy future in the country, and the essay seeks to propose some feasible reforms that are consistent with its current relevance.