Understanding Rules for Contesting Lok Sabha Elections from Multiple Constituencies

Let's analyze each statement regarding contesting elections in India, specifically for Lok Sabha seats, from multiple constituencies.

Analyzing Statement 1: Restriction on Contesting from Three Constituencies

Statement 1 says: "In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies."

This statement is incorrect.

• Initially, there was no such restriction, and candidates could contest from any number of constituencies.
• However, the law was amended. Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was introduced.
• This section restricts a candidate from contesting from more than two constituencies in a general election to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) or a State Legislative Assembly, or in the biennial or bye-elections to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) or a State Legislative Council.
• Therefore, there is indeed a law restricting candidates from contesting from three constituencies in a single Lok Sabha election. A candidate can contest from a maximum of two constituencies.

Analyzing Statement 2: Shri Devi Lal Contesting from Three Constituencies in 1991

Statement 2 says: "In 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies."

This statement is correct.

• It is a historical fact that in the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, Shri Devi Lal contested from three different Lok Sabha constituencies: Sikar (Rajasthan), Rohtak (Haryana), and Firozepur (Punjab).
• This instance occurred before the law was amended to restrict contesting to a maximum of two constituencies.

Analyzing Statement 3: Party Bearing Bye-election Costs

Statement 3 says: "As per the- existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies."

This statement is incorrect.

• To discourage candidates from contesting from multiple constituencies, an amendment introduced a provision for bearing the cost of the resultant bye-election.
• Section 33B was inserted into the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• This section stipulates that if a person is elected from more than one constituency and resigns from one of the seats, they are liable to pay an amount to the Central Government.
• The amount specified is Rs. \(\text{10,000}\) for a seat in a State Legislative Assembly or Council, and Rs. \(\text{20,000}\) for a seat in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) or the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).
• This cost is borne by the candidate themselves, not their political party.

Conclusion on Statement Correctness

Based on the analysis:

• Statement 1 is incorrect because current law restricts contesting to a maximum of two constituencies.
• Statement 2 is correct as Shri Devi Lal did contest from three Lok Sabha seats in 1991 before the law changed.
• Statement 3 is incorrect as the cost of the bye-election is borne by the candidate, not the party, according to existing rules.

Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

Revision Table: Lok Sabha Election Contesting Rules

Additional Information on Contesting from Multiple Constituencies in India

The ability to contest from multiple constituencies has been a topic of debate in Indian election reforms. The current restrictions and penalties were introduced to address concerns such as the financial burden and administrative effort involved in holding bye-elections when a winning candidate vacates one seat.

• The Election Commission of India has often advocated for restricting candidates to contest from only one constituency.
• The current rule allowing contests from two seats is a compromise, balanced by the provision for recovering the bye-election cost from the candidate.
• The 1991 instance of Shri Devi Lal contesting from three seats is often cited when discussing the history and reasons behind the introduction of the restrictions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The amendment came into effect in 1996.