Does the cost of a bye-election invalidate the provision permitting two seats?

No. Where a candidate contests more than one seat in the same general election and succeeds in both, one seat has to be vacated and a bye-election becomes necessary, which involves a drain on the public exchequer. The issue, however, is whether this by itself would result in the invalidation of a statutory provision, and it does not.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India