The increase in the deposit amount for contesting elections, as stipulated in Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was found to be a necessary measure to curb non-serious candidates and did not unreasonably infringe the right to contest elections.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutional validity of Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) on the ground that the stipulation therein that eligible citizens can contest the election for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the State only if each of them deposits Rs. 10,000/- and for being a Member of Parliament (MP) only if they deposit Rs. 25,000/- is ultra-vires the Constitution of India apart from being arbitrary and discriminatory against persons without adequate financial means.

2. The Petitioner claims to be the President of Odisha Durniti Sangharsa Mancha, which is a registered organization under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Petitioner claims to have contested from Khurda Constituency for the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and deposited the security money of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the security money was forfeited as he could not muster the sufficient minimum number of votes. He claims that he requested some of his friends to contest for MLA/MP seats but they did not contest as they could not arrange the security money.

3. It must be mentioned here that this Court had by an order dated 7th December, 2018 required the Petitioner to place on record the objects and reasons behind the amendment to the RP Act in 2009 which enhanced the security money as above. An affidavit dated 25th January, 2019 was filed by the Petitioner stating that in terms of 2011 census, more than 22% of Indian population is below the poverty line i.e. having an annual income of not less than Rs. 27,000.

4. The Union of India filed its counter affidavit on 21st May, 2019 pointing out that the last amendment to the RP Act and Section 34 in particular was by the amending Act, 2009 which prescribed the above sums for election as an MLA or an MP, as the case may be. It is pointed out that the RP Act has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 327 of the Constitution of India read with Entry 72 of the Union List (List-I) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is explained that in exercise of such powers, the Parliament as a matter of policy decides what qualifications, other than those prescribed by the Constitution of India, shall be made mandatory for being fulfilled by the persons seeking to contest elections. It is submitted that the increase in the deposit amount was made with a view to curtailing unnecessary increase in the nominations and therefore, the measure was legal, valid and reasonable. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 to urge that the right to contest an election as much as the right to vote in the election is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right.

5. On 26th June 2019, the Petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that the right to contest an election and the right to cast a vote is part of the democratic process and the system of free and fair elections, both of which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is accordingly contended that debarring a large section of the population, which cannot afford the security money stipulated, from contesting an election, would make it a prerogative of those economically affluent; this adversely impacts the democratic process and the system of free and fair elections.

6. When the case was taken up for hearing by this Court on 16th February, 2022 the Court required the learned counsel for the Petitioner to support his petition with some empirical data, to show inter-alia that as a result of increase the nominations fees, the number of nominations for election to the Lok Sabha as well as the State Assembly “has dropped perceptibly.”

7. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner filed an affidavit dated 12th April, 2022 in which it is stated inter-alia as under:

“[From the information obtained from the Election Commission of India]