The Supreme Court of India recently rejected a petition aimed at prohibiting candidates from contesting more than one constituency in general or assembly elections. The court affirmed this as a matter of “parliamentary sovereignty” and “political democracy”. This sparked a debate on the constitutionality of Section 33(7) of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951, which allows a candidate to contest from a maximum of two constituencies.
The Court’s Stance on Twin Candidature
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no applicable provision in the RPA to justify a judicial intervention on this matter. It argued that this issue squarely falls within the legislative domain and the realm of policy. The court stated that whether allowing contesting from multiple constituities contributes to parliamentary democracy is a question for the legislative to decide. It noted that the parliament had restricted the number of constituencies one can contest from to two in 1996, demonstrating its power and willingness to intervene when necessary.
Dissecting Section 33(7) of the RPA
Since 1951, politicians have taken advantage of Section 33(7) of the RPA to escalate their chances of winning. They have used this opportunity to try to divide the opponent’s vote, project their party’s power across the country, and influence the regional politics surrounding the constituencies. However, this practice was limited in 1996 when the RPA was amended, restricting a candidate from contesting in more than two constituencies.
Issues Stemming From Twin Candidature
Contesting in multiple constituencies often leads to significant resource and monetary wastage both for the candidates and the government, especially when a by-election becomes necessary after a candidate gives up one of the seats. For example, a by-election had to be conducted in Vadodara after PM Narendra Modi, who won from both Vadodara and Varanasi, decided to vacate his Vadodara seat.
Moreover, representing multiple constituencies can give rise to conflicts of interest as candidates might struggle to devote an equal amount of time and attention to each constituency. It may also lead to voter confusion and create suspicion about the candidate’s motivations. In the worst-case scenario, it can even pose a threat to democracy by undermining the principle of fair and equal representation.
Proposed Reforms
The Election Commission has repeatedly recommended revising Section 33(7) to allow one person to contest from only one seat over the years. They have proposed that if a candidate contested from two constituencies and won in both, they must bear the financial burden of conducting a subsequent by-election in one of the constituencies. This proposition aims to uphold the founding principle of Indian democracy: one person, one vote. An extension of this principle to “One person, one vote; one candidate, one constituency” seems to be the need of the hour.
