Summary
A public interest petitioner challenged Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a candidate to contest from two constituencies in one general election, citing the Election Commission's 2004 proposal, the Law Commission's 255th Report, the cost of bye-elections and voters' right to know. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition: a statute falls only for want of legislative competence or breach of Part III, and whether a candidate may contest more than one seat is legislative policy on which Parliament, which in 1996 cut the earlier unlimited choice to two seats, is entitled to decide; absent manifest arbitrariness or a violation of Article 19 the provision stands, though Parliament remains free to amend it.
Issues
- Whether Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, permitting a person to contest from two constituencies in the same general election, is unconstitutional, and whether the Court can direct that candidature be confined to one constituency.
Provisions considered
- Section 33(7), Representation of the People Act, 1951Inserted by Act 21 of 1996 with effect from 1 August 1996, it bars nomination from more than two constituencies in the same election, where previously there was no limit; the choice of permitting two seats is a legislative policy decision within Parliament's domain. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13)
- Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 32, Constitution of IndiaThe expense of a bye-election when a dual winner vacates a seat and the electorate's right to know do not by themselves render the provision manifestly arbitrary or violative of Article 19, so no ground for striking it down is made out. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- A candidate may contest two seats for a variety of reasons beyond uncertainty about the result, and whether political democracy is furthered by that choice is for Parliament to determine; the views of the Law Commission and Election Commission become law only through the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty, and nothing restrains Parliament from taking an appropriate view in future. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.