GS Paper 2
Source: Th
Context: The Supreme Court has refused to set aside a provision in the election law which allows candidates to contest polls from two constituencies simultaneously.
- Previously, a petition had sought the court to declare Section 33(7) of the Representation of People Act invalid and ultra vires.
Why has SC rejected the Plea?
The SC said that this is a policy matter and an issue concerning political democracy. It is for the Parliament to take a call (thus maintaining the Separation of Power Doctrine).
Legal Provisions:
As per Section 33(7) of the RPA (Representation of the People Act), 1951, one candidate can contest from a maximum of two constituencies.
- More than two constituencies were allowed until 1996 when the RPA was amended to set the cap at two constituencies.
Issues with contesting from two seats:
- Conflicts in the RPA laws: While 33(7)allows candidates to contest from two seats, Section 70 bars candidates from representing two constituencies in the Lok Sabha/state. Assembly.
- The strain on public finances: Lakhs of taxpayer rupees need to be shelled out because of a by-election that could have been easily avoided.
- Loss of electoral interest of voters: Repeated elections and a by-election would see fewer voters turn out to vote when compared to the first election.
Positives: It provides a “wider choice to the polity as well as candidates”.
Previous Recommendations on the issues:
- Last year the Chief Election Commissionerhad asked the Ministry of Law & Justice to limit the seats from which a candidate can contest to just one.
- Candidates to bear the financial burden of conducting the subsequent by-election in one of the constituencies (if one wins in both seats)
Conclusion
It is time to modify “One person, one vote” and expand that principle to “One person, one vote; one candidate, one constituency.
Insta Links:
- Election Commission wants people to run from one seat
- To read RPA 1951: Click here
- One constituency one candidate
Prelims links:
Consider the following statements: (UPSC 2020)
- According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
- According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: D
One can be a minister for 6 months (Article 164). However, one can become a member of the state legislature only if one must be not less than 30 years of age in the case of the legislative council and not less than 25 years of age in the case of the legislative assembly. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified for contesting an election from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
