The debate on ‘One Nation One Election’ overlooks the practice of candidates contesting from multiple constituencies (OCMC). This long-standing trend raises key concerns about its impact on democracy, governance, and voters.
History of OCMC
- Regular Elections: The Constitution of India mandates regular elections to the Legislative Assembly and the Lok Sabha every five years.
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: While the Constitution empowers Parliament to regulate the electoral process, the specific issue of candidates contesting from multiple constituencies is governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Need for Amendment in RPA: Initially, there was no limit on how many constituencies a candidate could contest.
- However, the situation became problematic when candidates began contesting from more than two constituencies, winning multiple seats, and then vacating all but one.
- 1996 Amendment in RPA: In response, the law was amended in 1996 to limit the number of constituencies a candidate could contest from to two.
- Aim of Amendment: This amendment aimed to discourage candidates from contesting multiple seats.
- Despite this, the practice continues, especially in State Legislative Assembly elections, resulting in frequent by-elections and increasing costs.
- For Instance: There were 44 by-elections for State Assemblies in November 2024 due to the resignation of sitting legislators.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Course
RPA Provisions on OCMC
- The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, allows a candidate to contest elections from two constituencies under sub-section 33(7), but they can only hold one seat if elected from both, as per Section 70.
- For example, when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi decided to contest from Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh and also contested from Wayanad in Kerala.
- After winning from both seats, he decided to vacate the Wayanad seat.
|
Challenges Arising from OCMC
- Financial Burden on the Public: Whenever a candidate vacates a seat after winning from multiple constituencies, it triggers by-elections. This increases the administrative costs of conducting elections, which is borne by taxpayers.
- The central government covers the cost of Lok Sabha elections, while state governments handle the costs for Legislative Assemblies.
- In 2014, the total cost was ₹3,870 crore, and adjusted for 6% inflation, the 2024 election is expected to cost ₹6,931 crore, or ₹12.76 crore per seat. If 10 politicians win from two constituencies, a by-election could cost an additional ₹130 crore.
- While this is small compared to total election costs, political parties spend much more on advertisement.
- This burden falls on the public, and much of the funding comes from black money, compromising financial transparency. This often leads to a nexus between political parties and corporate groups.
|
Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store
- Disrupting Electoral Fairness: By-elections caused by candidates vacating seats within six months often favor the ruling party, as it mobilizes resources and offers patronage, creating an uneven playing field.
- This undermines parliamentary fairness and disadvantages the Opposition.
- Voters, hoping for welfare benefits, typically back the ruling party, reinforcing its dominance.
- Wasting Party Resources: The financial burden of organizing a by-election disproportionately falls on the defeated candidate and their party, forcing them to spend resources again.
- Undermining Democracy: The saying “Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people” suggests that elections should prioritize the needs of the people.
- However, when a candidate contests from multiple seats, it often reflects the leader’s interests rather than the public’s, undermining democratic principles.
- Enhance Reach of the Candidate: OCMC is sometimes used to expand a leader’s influence, relying on their popularity for electoral success. This often highlights the leader’s dominance within the party.
- For Instance: PM Modi during the 2014 general election had contested from two seats one in Gujarat another in Uttar Pradesh.
- Undermining Freedom of Speech: A 2023 petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India) argued that when people elect a representative, they trust that person to be their voice.
- Violating Article 19 (1)(a): OCMC undermines citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression because until by-elections are not held people’s voices and demands are not raised.
- Confusion Among Voters: This practice leads to voter confusion and discontent, as seen in Wayanad, Kerala, when Rahul Gandhi vacated his seat in 2024. Voter turnout dropped to 64.24% in the bypoll, compared to 72.92% in the general election.
Relevance of OCMC for Political Parties
- Safety Net: Contesting multiple seats offers a fallback option for candidates, particularly in tightly contested constituencies.
- Ensures Leadership Continuity: In India’s leader- and family-centric political landscape, OCMC ensures a leader’s continued presence or a smooth transition, even if they lose one seat while the party secures a majority.
- For example, in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections, Mamata Banerjee lost the Nandigram seat, necessitating a resignation from Bhabanipur to enable her re-election.
- Similarly, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami faced a similar situation in the 2022 Assembly elections.
|
International Perspectives on OCMC
While the practice of contesting multiple constituencies is common in India, it is not unique. Several countries have similar laws, but their approaches vary:
- Pakistan: Pakistan places no limit on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest, as seen in the 2018 elections when the former Prime Minister contested five seats and vacated four.
- Bangladesh: Candidates were allowed to contest up to five constituencies until 2008, but this was later reduced to three constituencies.
- United Kingdom: The practice was once common but was banned in 1983 to ensure clear accountability and representation.
- Banning OCMC: The RPA, 1951, particularly Section 33(7), can be amended to explicitly ban a candidate from contesting from multiple constituencies.
- Recommendation by EIC: The Election Commission of India (ECI) recommended this change as early as 2004, and the Law Commission’s 255th report in 2015 also made a similar recommendation.
- Imposing Financial Penalties on Candidates: The ECI has proposed that the cost of by-elections triggered by OCMC should be recovered from the candidate who vacates a seat. This would serve as a deterrent to candidates contemplating contesting from multiple constituencies.
- Might Not be Effective: However, given that political parties can often afford the costs, this may not be sufficient in the long run.
- Delaying By-Elections: One effective measure could be to delay by-elections for at least one year after a seat is vacated.
- Reason for Delay: This would provide voters with enough time to make an informed decision and would give defeated candidates the opportunity to recover and strategize for the next election.
- Amending Section 151A: The law could be amended to allow for this by changing Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Might Not be Effective: Until the one-year period is over, the people of that constituency may be left without a voice in the legislature, as the seat remains vacant.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes
Conclusion
While OCMC is an established practice in Indian politics, its negative consequences outweigh any potential benefits. In the spirit of the ‘one person, one vote’ principle, it is high time that India enforces the ‘one candidate, one constituency’ rule. Only with such a reform can we ensure a fairer, more transparent, and accountable electoral system that truly serves the people of the nation.
December 16, 2024
