New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition seeking a ban on candidates contesting elections simultaneously from two seats. The top court noted that the decision in the matter was up to the Parliament, in response to the PIL which challenged the constitutional basis of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, which allows for the electoral provision.
The petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, was presented before the court by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. The latter drew the court's attention toward a recommendation by the Law Commission of India to do away with the provision. The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala, however, noted that a statutory provision such as this could not be termed unconstitutional in lieu of the law commission's recommendation.
Also read: Bhima Koregaon case: SC adjourns hearing on Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira's bail pleas
The petition challenged the provision as unreasonable, adding that it would anyway require a by-election as the candidate will have to vacate one of the seats if they secure victory in both seats, also arguing that it went against rights guaranteed under articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is a "matter of legislative policy since it is ultimately the parliament's will whether political democracy is furthered by granting such choice," the court, in turn, noted.
The apex court also observed that its ruling on the matter would not stop the Parliament from amending the law. Replying to the petitioner's alternative suggestion of making such candidates deposit a higher amount, the bench also rejected it as a policy matter.
Asking what was wrong with the provision, the CJI said, "There is another way to look at it. A leader can say that I want to establish my pan India and show that I can stand from West, east, north, south", adding that ultimately, the electorate would decide.
"When a candidate contests from two seats, it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats if he wins both. This, apart from the consequent unavoidable financial burden on the public exchequer, government manpower and other resources for holding bye-election against the resultant vacancy, is also an injustice to the voters of the constituency which the candidate is quitting from," the plea said.
