Industrial Units In MIDC Areas Exempt From Municipal Property Tax Only As Long As MIDC Provides Amenities: Supreme Court MIDC Service Charges Are Fees For Services, Not Taxes; Industrial Units Must Pay Municipal Property Tax: Supreme Court Public Servants Have No Vested Right To Be Considered For Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court IBC | Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Renege From Approved Plan By Citing Pending Litigations Or Letter Of Intent Conditions: Supreme Court Payment Of 93% Sale Consideration Demonstrates Readiness & Willingness For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Delay In Issuing Legal Notice No Ground To Deny Specific Performance If Suit Filed Within Limitation: Supreme Court Brandishing Pistol At Children During Abduction Inherently Constitutes Threat To Cause Death Or Hurt: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 364A IPC Lack Of CDR Records For 2003-Era Kidnapping Not Fatal To Prosecution If Oral Evidence Of Ransom Is Cogent: Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142 Despite Wife's Opposition To Decree Failure To Conduct TIP For Unknown Accused Diminishes Evidentiary Value Of Dock Identification: Supreme Court Acquits Rape-Murder Convicts On Death Row Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court CCI Has No Inherent Power To Keep Combination Approval In Abeyance Or Order Re-Notification Without Express Statutory Authority: Supreme Court CCI Cannot Reopen Concluded Merger Approvals After One Year; Characterization Dispute In Filing Is Not 'Non-Disclosure': Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Against Amazon Stamping Defects Are Curable, Arbitrators Empowered To Decide Such Objections Under Section 16 A&C Act: Supreme Court Rejection Of Section 16 Objection By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226/227; Aggrieved Party Must Wait For Final Award: Supreme Court Police Parading Accused Or Orchestrating Social Media Condemnation Is Extra-Legal Punishment, Violates Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras 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