ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 02-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 701
701
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 967 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 02, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951: s. 33(7) –
Constitutional validity of –s. 33(7) permitting person to contest from
more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously –
Plea that a person should not be permitted to contest from more
than one seat at a time – Held: Such relief cannot be granted –
Permittinga candidate to contest from more than one seat in a
Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative
Assembly is a matter of legislative policy – Thisis a matter where
Parliament is legitimately entitled to make legislative choices and
enact or amend legislation – In absence of any manifest arbitrariness
of the provision or violation of Art. 14 or Art. 19, not possible to
strike down the provision as unconstitutional – However, the
Parliament not restrained from taking an appropriate view if it
decides to do so at any point of time in pursuance of its legislative
authority– Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 19.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :  Writ Petition (Civil)
No.967 of 2017.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution Of India)
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Adv.
for the Petitioner.
R. Venkataramani, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Saudamini Sharma,
Mrs. Rukhmini Bobde, Ankur Talwar, Chinmayee Chandra, Kanu
Agrawal, Digvijay Dam, Vinayak Mehrotra, Mrs. Mansi Sood,  Chitvan
Singhal, Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Anand
Venkatramani, Ms. Vijay Lakshami Venkataramani, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Pallavi Barua, Ms. Sakshi
Upadhayya, Ms. Aparna Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of
Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 19511.
2. Apart from the above challenge, the petitioner seeks a direction
to the Central government and the Election Commission of India to take
appropriate steps to restrict any person from contesting an election for
the “same office” from more than one constituency simultaneously.
3. At this stage, it would also be material to note that the third
prayer, prayer (c), which sought a direction to the Union government
and the Election Commission “to take appropriate steps to discourage
independent candidates from contesting the Parliamentary and Assembly
elections” was rejected by an order of this Court dated 11 December
2017.
4. The basis of the petition is that on 5 July 2004, the Chief Election
Commissioner urged the then Prime Minister to amend Section 33(7) of
the Act of 1951 insofar as it permits a person to contest from more than
one constituency for the same office simultaneously. The petitioner urges
that the Law Commission in its 255th Report had opined that the
Representation of the People Act 1951 should be amended to provide
that a person should not be permitted to contest from more than one seat
at a time.
5. We have heard Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr R Venkataramani, Attorney
General for India. The Election Commission of India has also appeared
in these proceedings through its counsel, Mr Amit Sharma.
6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Union of India and
the Election Commission.
7. During the course of the hearing, Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
senior counsel urged that the petition implicates an issue under Article
19 of the Constitution. It has been submitted that citizens exercise their
right to vote after knowing about a candidate’s character, qualifications
and criminal antecedents among other details. When a candidate who
contests from two seats, is elected from both, one of the two seats has
1 “Act of 1951”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
to be vacated. Apart from the financial burden which is imposed on the
public exchequer for holding a bye-election, it has been urged that the
electorate which has cast its vote in favour of a candidate on the basis
of the representations which were held out during the course of
campaigning would be deprived of being represented by that candidate
for the Parliament

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.