New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition to bar candidates from contesting from more than one constituency in the general or assembly elections, calling it a matter of “parliamentary sovereignty” and “political democracy”.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, held that there is no manifest arbitrariness in the relevant provision in the Representation of People Act (RPA) that may warrant an intervention by the court in this matter, which, it said, falls “squarely within the legislative domain” and “realm of policy”.
“It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy since it is ultimately it is parliament’s will that determines whether the political democracy is furthered by granting such a choice,” said the bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.
Candidates may contest from different seats due to a variety of reasons, noted the bench, adding: “Whether this would further the course of democracy is up to the parliament…absent any manifest arbitrariness in the said provision, we cannot strike it down.”
Dismissing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the bench also put on record in its order that a candidate may decide to contest from two seats for a variety of reasons apart from uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the political process.
“Contesting from multiple seats can be due to multiple reasons and there would be reason which weigh in the balance and whether it furthers parliamentary democracy is something which is in legislative domain. Absent any manifest arbitrariness for violation of Articles 14 and 21, it is not for this Court to strike down the provision as unconstitutional. This issue lies in the domain of parliamentary sovereignty,” stated the order.
It highlighted that parliament did amend the law in 1996 to restrict the number of constituencies to two whereas earlier, a candidate could contest from any number of seats.
“The parliament has already intervened in the past. The parliament can certainly step in again. At the relevant time when the parliament deems it appropriate to do it, they will do it. There is no question of inaction on anybody’s part,” the bench observed.
Earlier, senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Upadhyay, had urged the bench to consider testing the validity of Section 33(7) of the RPA which permits a candidate to contest any election (parliamentary, state assembly, biennial council, or by-elections) from up to two constituencies. The provision was introduced in 1996 prior to which there was no bar on the number of constituencies from which a candidate could contest.
The lawyer argued that the provision has an adverse impact on the voters as well as public exchequer since the candidate must leave one constituency if he emerges victorious from both. He added that an unnecessary burden on the exchequer is imposed due to an imperative by-election and is also an injustice to the voters of the winning candidate.
The bench, however, replied that not only this is a matter of policy and legislative wisdom, there was apparently nothing unconstitutional or arbitrary about the impugned provision in the RPA.
“It’s a facet of the political democracy. When you contest from two seats you are not sure you will be elected from both the seats. This is done for a variety of reasons. Someone may want to have a pan-India influence…likewise, there can be different reasons to make such a choice. What is so wrong about it? There is no constitutional immorality at all,” it said.
Sankaranarayanan, on his part, also harped upon a statement by the then Chief Election Commissioner in July 2004, requesting the then Prime Minister to amend the law to the extent it permits candidates to contest from two constituencies. The Law Commission in its 255th report had also suggested that Section 33(7) should be amended so that a person does not contest elections from more than one seat, the lawyer pointed out.
The bench, however, noted that it is completely up to the government and parliament to take a call in its wisdom regarding the requests made to it for amending the law and that the court could not direct for implementation of any recommendation.
In 2018, EC had supported Upadhyay’s plea in its affidavit saying that the law should be amended to ensure that a person cannot contest from more than one seat. Alternatively, it had also suggested that a candidate vacating one of the two seats after winning both must be made to pay for the by-election.
At the same time, EC flagged that proposal to bar candidates from contesting from more than one seat was rejected by a parliamentary standing committee way back in 1998, which had taken note of the view of an all-party meeting favouring to retain the provision.
