Supreme Court of India· 04 February 2023

Can Section 33(7), RP Act 1951 be struck down for allowing two constituencies?

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

2023 INSC 94 · Writ Petition (Civil) No. 967 of 2017
Coram: Saroj Kumari Gaur

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.33(7) Representation of the Pe…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat is a matter of legislative policy, since Parliament determines whether political democracy is furthered by granting such a choice, and a candidate may contest two seats for a variety of reasons. Absent any manifest arbitrariness of the provision so as to implicate Article 14, or a violation of Article 19, it is not possible for the Court to strike it down as unconstitutional.

Headnote

Representation of the People Act 1951 — s.33(7) — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.19 — Contesting from more than one constituency — Legislative policy — Manifest arbitrariness — Representation of the People Act 1951 — s.33(7) — Matter of legislative policy — Held: Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat is a matter of legislative policy on which Parliament is legitimately entitled to make choices. Absent manifest arbitrariness implicating Article 14, or a violation of Article 19, the provision cannot be struck down. (¶12) Constitution of India — Grounds on which a statute may be challenged — Held further: A statutory provision can be challenged only on the ground that the legislature lacked competence to enact it, or that it violates a Fundamental Right in Part III. Legislative competence was not in issue here. (¶11) Representation of the People Act 1951 — s.33(7) — Cost of a consequent bye-election — Held further: That success in two seats compels one to be vacated and necessitates a bye-election which drains the public exchequer does not by itself result in the invalidation of a statutory provision. Petition dismissed. (¶10, 14)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 12Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy. It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy WPC 967/2017 6 since, ultimately, Parliament determines whether political democracy in the country is furthered by granting a choice such as is made available by Section 33(7) of the Act of 1951. A candidate who contests from more than one seat may do so for a variety of reasons not just bearing on the uncertainty which the candidate perceives of an election result. There are other considerations which weigh in the balance in determining whether this would restrict the course of electoral democracy in the country. This is a matter where Parliament is legitimately entitled to make legislative choices and enact or amend legislation. The Law Commission and the Election Commission may at the material time have expressed certain viewpoints. Whether they should be converted into a mandate of the law depends on the exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty in enacting legislation. Absent any manifest arbitrariness of the provision so as to implicate the provisions of Article 14 or a violation of Article 19, it would not be possible for this Court to strike down the provision as unconstitutional.

Acts & Sections

s.33(7) Representation of the People Act 1951Art.14 Constitution of IndiaArt.19 Constitution of IndiaArt.32 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

On what grounds may a statutory provision be challenged before the Court?Does the cost of a bye-election invalidate the provision permitting two seats?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections