Supreme Court rejects plea against candidates contesting election from 2 constituencies; says allows politicians to become pan-India leaders

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to restrict persons from contesting election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously..A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat would enable politicians to try and become pan-India leaders."A political leader can attempt to become a pan-India leader and contest likewise," the CJI saidPertinently, the Court said that it was a matter of legislative policy and there was nothing unconstitutional about a person contesting from more than one seat.."Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in assembly election is a matter of legislative policy since it is parliament's will as to whether parliamentary democracy would be furthered by granting such a choice," the Court stated..Upadhyay, through his plea, sought directions to the Central Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to restrict a person to contest for the same office from different constituencies..The basis of the plea was that on July 5, 2004, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) had urged the then Prime Minister to amend section 33(7) of Representation of the People Act (RPA) 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. .Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Upadhyay, asked to Court to consider the impact on voter and public exchequer if candidates are allowed to contest elections from more than one constituency. He contended that the policy of permitting leaders to run from two constituencies was violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution."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. What is wrong about it? This is political democracy," CJI Chandrachud remarked."Impact on voter or public exchequer should be considered. It is against Articles 19 and 21," Sankaranarayanan said.But the CJI said that it would be for the parliament to decide the same and not the Supreme Court.."There is no constitutional immorality at all. There are instances in history," Justice Narasimha weighed in..Thereafter, the Court said that although letting a candidate appear in multiple seats would mean a bye-election if he wins in both seats, thereby draining public exchequer, the issue fell squarely with the legislative domain."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," the Court ordered.It, therefore, rejected the petition. .[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.