Context: 

The Supreme Court refused to set aside a provision in the election law which allows candidates to contest polls from two constituencies simultaneously.

Rationale behind elections from dual seats:

• Permitting this is a matter of legislative policy since ultimately it is Parliament’s will as to whether the political democracy is furthered by granting such choice.
• It’s not unconstitutional, rather its recommendation & unless it violates Part 3 (fundamental rights), it can be continued.

Implications of contesting dual seat elections:

• The Law Commission had recommended that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should be amended to provide that a person should be allowed to contest only from one seat.
• The plea urged the court to declare section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a person to contest a general election or a group of bypolls or biennial elections from two constituencies, as invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution.
• It is against Articles 19 and 21. Voters go to cast their vote and the candidate says they will deliver some promises but don’t disclose that if given a seat in a different constituency, they will go there.
• Also, elections for that vacant seat required money, resources and time again, which is not desirable.
• Before August 1996, a candidate could contest from many constituencies but after this, it was limited to two seats.

Disadvantages:

• Burden on Exchequer: It imposes a financial burden on the public exchequer, government manpower, and other resources.

• • It leads to a waste of time and is against the spirit of the constitution.

• Power being vested upon the people in power: 

• • Here the supreme power is lost from the hands of people, as the valuable vote in entirety lost.

• Brings Inequality Amongst Voters:

• • The multiple-candidature is also discriminatory in nature as it provides a second chance to the voters of a constituency where the seat is vacated.

• Vacant constituency goes unrepresented:

• • Because the candidate has to resign from one of the two seats and by-elections are to be held within the maximum period of 6 months.

Conclusion:

It is a matter of parliamentary sovereignty whether the recommendations of the Law Commission are to be converted to legislative mandate and the court cannot strike down Section 33(7) in the absence of any manifest arbitrariness.

 News Source: Indian Express