Read Time: 05 minutes
The petitioner argued that when a candidate contests from two seats, it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats if he wins both.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking direction to restrict people from contesting election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously.
Court opined that "this is a matter of legislative policy since ultimately it is the Parliament's will to see if a country can be granted such a choice".
A bench of Chief Justice of India Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala noted, "The Parliament will make a change again if it deems it fit, let them consider it."
The plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay submitted that “One Person One Vote” and “One Candidate One Constituency” is the dictum of democracy. However, as per the law, as it stands today, a person can contest the election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously, the plea added.
Whereas Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allows a person to contest a general election or a group of bye-elections or biennial elections from two constituencies, whereas Section 70 of the RPA, specifies that if a person is elected to more than one seat in either House of the Parliament or either House of the State Legislature, then he/she can only hold on to one of the seats that he/she won in the election, Upadhyay added.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appearing for Upadhyay submitted that the issue is mainly against Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act while stating that it is essentially violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Additionally, Sankarnarayanan further submitted that the Election Commission of India and the Law Commission both have recommended the same.
Sankarnarayanan informed the bench that before 1996, a candidate could stand for many constituencies, but this was restricted to two. To which CJI Chandrachud said, "The Parliament can intervene again like it did in 1996, but it is not for the Court".
Given the above, the bench noted in its order that this is a matter of legislative policy since ultimately it is Parliament's will to see if a country can be granted such a choice. Hence, absent any manifest arbitrariness in the said provision, we cannot strike it down, the bench ruled.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Statute: Constitution of India, Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Please Login or Register
