[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The PIL says practice of candidates contesting from two constituencies is in violation of Constitution and an injustice to voters

Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have contested and won from two Parliamentary constituencies in 2014 – Benaras and Vadodara – and then vacated the latter but the practice of politicians contesting from two constituencies both in federal and provincial elections has irked a spokesperson of the Delhi unit of the BJP.

Advocate and Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, on Friday, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking to restrict candidates from contesting elections for the same office simultaneously from more than one constituency.

The PIL has also sought a direction to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take appropriate steps to discourage independent candidates from contesting Parliament and state assembly elections.

Upadhyay has sought directions from the apex court to declare as invalid and ultra-virus section 33(7) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which allows a person to contest a general election or a group of by-elections or biennial elections from two constituencies.

“When a candidate contests from two seats, it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats if he wins both. This, apart from the consequent unavoidable financial burden on the public exchequer, government manpower and other resources for holding bye-election against the resultant vacancy, is also an injustice to the voters of the constituency which the candidate is quitting from,” the PIL states.

Upadhyay say that in July 2004, the then Chief Election Commissioner had urged the then Prime Minister for amendment of Section 33(7) of the RP Act to provide that a person cannot contest from more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously.

“The ECI alternatively suggested that if existing provisions are retained, then the candidate contesting from two seats should bear the cost of the by-election to the seat that the contestant decides to vacate in the event of his/her winning both seats,” the BJP leader’s petition states. It adds that the Centre has not taken appropriate steps on the suggestions of the former CEC till date.

It also sought to discourage independent candidates from contesting elections, saying they were often connected with the issue of “fragmented voting” and instability in the electoral system.

The PIL argues that the practice, which has been adopted in the past by several high-profile political leaders like Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Samajwadi Party patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and others, also violates Article 19 on the Constitution.

“Right to know is the fundamental right of every citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution. Citizens cast their vote after knowing the candidate’s character, qualifications, criminal record, etc. When a candidate contests from two seats, it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats if he wins both,” the PIL states.

Upadhyay has claimed that the 170^th and more recently the 225^th report of the Law Commission as well as the Goswami committee report of 1990 have all endorsed the view that candidates should be allowed to contest only from one constituency in any given election and that the central government must amend the RP Act to facilitate this electoral reform.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]