J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1 The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 19511.

1 “Act of 1951”

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2023.02.04 Reason:

2 Apart from the above challenge, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Central government and the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to restrict any person from contesting an election for the “same ofÏce”

from more than one constituency simultaneously.

3 At this stage, it would also be material to note that the third prayer, prayer (c), which sought a direction to the Union government and the Election Commission “to take appropriate steps to discourage independent candidates from contesting the Parliamentary and Assembly elections” was rejected by an order of this Court dated 11 December 2017.

4 The basis of the petition is that on 5 July 2004, the Chief Election Commissioner urged the then Prime Minister to amend Section 33(7) of the Act of 1951 insofar as it permits a person to contest from more than one constituency for the same ofÏce simultaneously. The petitioner urges that the Law Commission in its 255th Report had opined that the Representation of the People Act 1951 should be amended to provide that a person should not be permitted to contest from more than one seat at a time.

5 We have heard Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India. The Election Commission of India has also appeared in these proceedings through its counsel, Mr Amit Sharma.

6 Counter afÏdavits have been filed by the Union of India and the Election Commission.

7 During the course of the hearing, Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel urged that the petition implicates an issue under Article 19 of the Constitution. It has been submitted that citizens exercise their right to vote after knowing about a candidate’s character, qualifications and criminal antecedents among other details. When a candidate who contests from two seats, is elected from both, one of the two seats has to be vacated. Apart from the financial burden which is imposed on the public exchequer for holding a bye-election, it has been urged that the electorate which has cast its vote in favour of a candidate on the basis of the representations which were held out during the course of campaigning would be deprived of being represented by that candidate for the Parliamentary or, as the case may be, the State Legislative Assembly constituency. Consequently, it has been urged that the electorate which has opted for a candidate in pursuance of its right to know under Article 19(1)(a) would be deprived of its right when the candidate vacates the seat.

8 Section 33(7) of the Act of 1951 provides as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election,—

(a) in the case of a general election to the House of the People (whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies), from more than two Parliamentary constituencies;

(b) in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies), from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State;

(c) in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the State;

(d) in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, for filling more than two such seats;

(e) in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Parliamentary constituencies;

(f) in the case of bye