Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 33(7) of Representation of the People Act 1951.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On dated 2Feb 2023, Supreme Court held in a Judgement that A statutory provision can only be challenged on the grounds of lack of legislative competence or violation of a Fundamental Right.

petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner is seeking a direction to restrict any person from contesting an election for the "same office" from more than one constituency simultaneously. The court rejected the third prayer seeking a direction to discourage independent candidates from contesting Parliamentary and Assembly elections. The petition is based on the Chief Election Commissioner's request to the Prime Minister to amend the act, as recommended by the Law Commission in its 255th Report.

Supreme Court stated that petitioner raises an issue regarding a legislative provision that requires a bye-election when a candidate contests more than one seat in the same election, leading to a drain on public funds.

Supreme Court held that permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat is a matter of legislative policy, determined by Parliament. It is not for the Court to strike down the provision unless it is manifestly arbitrary or violates Article 19. Parliament has the authority to intervene and change the legislation if it chooses to do so. Act 21 of 1996 restricts a candidate to contesting two seats in one election. The Court cannot grant relief in this case, as the legislative provision is a matter of legislative policy and is not unconstitutional. Petition Dismissed.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India and Another     

Latest Legal News