Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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