Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

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