Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 967/2017)
Background
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a candidate to contest an election for the same office (Lok Sabha or State Assembly) from up to two constituencies simultaneously. He also sought a direction to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India to restrict any person from contesting for the "same office" from more than one constituency at a time. His argument was that when a candidate who wins from both contested seats has to vacate one, it forces a bye-election at public expense and deprives voters of the representative they chose based on election-time promises.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that permitting a candidate to contest from two seats simultaneously is a matter of legislative policy that Parliament is entitled to decide, not something the judiciary can strike down absent a violation of a fundamental right. The Court noted Parliament had already intervened once, in 1996, to cap simultaneous contests at two seats (down from no limit previously), showing the legislature actively regulates this area. It found no manifest arbitrariness under Article 14 nor a violation of Article 19, and held that financial cost to the public exchequer from a resulting bye-election, by itself, is not a ground to declare a validly enacted provision unconstitutional. The Court clarified this ruling does not stop Parliament from further amending the law on its own initiative if it chooses to do so.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not strike down a law merely because it produces an inconvenient or costly practical consequence (like a bye-election); unless a statute exceeds legislative competence or violates a specific fundamental right, policy choices such as how many seats a candidate may contest remain for Parliament, not the judiciary, to decide.