Case Note & Summary
The petitioner invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The provision permits a candidate to contest from up to two constituencies simultaneously in the same election. The petitioner sought a direction to the Central Government and the Election Commission of India to restrict candidates from contesting for the same office from more than one constituency. The petition was based on concerns raised by the Chief Election Commissioner in 2004 and the Law Commission's 255th Report, which recommended amending the Act to prohibit multiple candidatures. The petitioner argued that when a candidate wins both seats and vacates one, it imposes a financial burden on the public exchequer for bye-elections and deprives the electorate of representation based on their right to know under Article 19(1)(a). The Union of India and the Election Commission filed counter affidavits. The Court heard arguments from senior counsel for the petitioner and the Attorney General for India. The Court analyzed that Section 33(7) was inserted by Act 21 of 1996, effective from 1 August 1996, limiting candidates to two seats, whereas previously there was no bar. The Court reasoned that the issue falls within the legislative domain, as permitting multiple candidatures is a matter of legislative policy aimed at furthering political democracy. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions can only be challenged on grounds of legislative incompetence or violation of Fundamental Rights. Since legislative competence was not in issue, the Court examined whether the provision violated Articles 14 or 19. The Court held that absent manifest arbitrariness implicating Article 14 or a violation of Article 19, the provision cannot be struck down. The Court noted that Parliament had already intervened to restrict candidatures to two seats, reflecting a legislative choice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) and leaving it open for Parliament to amend the law if it so decides in the future.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(a) - Right to Know - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 33(7) - Petitioner argued that when a candidate contests from two seats and vacates one after winning both, the electorate is deprived of representation based on their informed choice under Article 19(1)(a). Court held that permitting multiple candidatures is a matter of legislative policy and does not violate Article 19 absent manifest arbitrariness. (Paras 7, 12) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Legislative Policy - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 33(7) - Challenge to statutory provision on grounds of financial burden and electoral inconvenience. Court held that the issue pertains to the legislative domain, and absent lack of legislative competence or violation of Fundamental Rights, the Court cannot strike down the provision. Parliament's choice to allow up to two seats is a valid exercise of sovereignty. (Paras 10-12) C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 14 - Manifest Arbitrariness - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 33(7) - Petitioner contended that the provision causes financial drain on public exchequer due to bye-elections. Court held that unless the provision is manifestly arbitrary so as to implicate Article 14 or violates Article 19, it cannot be invalidated. The provision, as amended, represents a legislative balance. (Paras 10, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which permits a candidate to contest from up to two constituencies simultaneously, is constitutionally valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No relief granted. The constitutional validity of Section 33(7) is upheld.
Law Points
- Legislative policy
- Parliamentary sovereignty
- Constitutional validity
- Article 14 and Article 19 challenges
- Manifest arbitrariness
