Supreme Court rejects plea seeking to bar candidates from contesting elections from more than one seat

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea that had sought to restrict a candidate from contesting the election for the same office from more than one constituency simultaneously saying it is a matter of legislative policyA bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed that candidates may contest elections from different seats due to a variety of reasons and it is Parliaments will as to whether the course of democracy would be furthered by granting such a choiceThe bench also comprising justices PS Narasimha and J B Pardiwala was dealing with a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay who had sought to declare section 337 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 which allows a person to contest a general election or a group of bypolls or biennial elections from two constituencies as invalid and ultra vires to the ConstitutionCandidates contesting from more than one seat may do it for a variety of reasons the bench saidPermitting a candidate to contest from more than one seatis a matter of legislative policy since it is ultimately the Parliaments will as to whether the political democracy in the country is furthered by granting such a choice it saidThe top court observed that in the absence of any manifest arbitrariness in section 337 of the 1951 Act it would not be possible for it to strike the provision downDuring the arguments senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who appeared in the court on behalf of Upadhyay said if a candidate contests an election from two seats and gets elected from both he or she has to vacate one seat which will lead to a bypoll that will be an additional financial burden on the exchequerAlso Read Money laundering case SC reserves verdict on plea of Rana Ayyub against summonsHe said prior to a 1996 amendment there was no bar on the number of seats a candidate could contest in an election The amendment restricted that number to twoThe bench observed that it is for Parliament to decide whether a candidate can contest an election from more than one seatWhen you contest from two seats you do not know from where you will get elected What is wrong about it This is part of electoral democracy the court said during the hearingIt said Parliament can certainly step in as it did in 1996 and say it is limiting it to one constituencyAt the relevant time if Parliament thinks necessary it can do it There is no question of inaction the bench saidThere is another way of looking at it Some political leader might say I want to establish my panIndia image by contesting an electionlike from the northeast and north or south the bench said adding that there have been instances in the countrys political history which depict that there have been leaders of that statureThe top court noted that one of the basis of the petition is that in July 2004 the then chief election commissioner had urged the then prime minister to amend section 337 of the 1951 Act in so far as it permits a person to contest an election from more than one seatIt said the petitioner has also referred to the 255th report of the Law Commission which had agreed with the Election Commission EC that the 1951 Act should be amended to provide that a person be not allowed to contest an election from more than one seatIn his plea Upadhyay had also sought a direction to the Centre and the EC to take appropriate steps to restrict people from contesting an election for the same office from more than one constituency simultaneouslyOne personone vote and one candidateone constituency is the dictum of democracy However as per the law as it stands today a person can contest the election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously the plea had saidThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever