CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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