You are on page 1of 32

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.

__________OF 2014 (Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF: VOTERS PARTY THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. D.K.GIRI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

WITH I.A. NO. OF 2014

APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION

PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MS. USHA NANDINI. V

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL. NO.

DATE OF PROCEEDINGS

PAGE NO.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

SECTION X

USHA NANDINI V.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.__________OF 2014 (Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) IN THE MATTER OF: VOTERS PARTY THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. D.K.GIRI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. INDEX S. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PARTICULARS Listing Performa Synopsis Writ Petition with affidavit Annexures P-1 to P-2 I.A. NO. OF 2014 Application for Direction. Vakalat & Appearance Total Filed by: New Delhi Dated: 25.02.2014 (USHA NANDINI V.) Advocate for the Petitioner 57, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India New Delhi 110001. Code No. 1925 I.C. No. 3527 Mr. R. Purushothaman 622/COPIES 1+3 1+3 1+3 1+3 1+3 C/FEES

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

INDEX

SL.NO 1. 2. 3. 4.

PARTICULARS Listing Performa Synopsis Writ Petition with affidavit. ANNEXURE P/1: A true Copy of the proposed electoral reforms presented by the then CEC, T. S. Krishna Murthy to the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on July 30, 2004.

PAGE NO.

5.

ANNEXURE P/2: A true Copy of the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms that was prepared by

the Core-Committee on Electoral Reforms, a part of the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in collaboration with the Election Commission and released in 2010. 6. I.A. NO. Application for Direction. OF 2014

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING SECTION X

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box) Central Act: (Title) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1951. Section: ARTICLE 32 SECTION 33 (6) (7) & SECTION 70 Central Rule: (Title): Rule No(s): State Act: (Title) Section: State Rule: (Title) Rule No(s): Impugned Interim Order: (Date) Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date) High Court: (Name) Names of Judges: Tribunal / Authority: (Name)

1.

Name of Matter: Civil Criminal VOTERS PARTY, THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. D.K. GIRI

2.

(a)

Petitioner/Appellant No. 1:

(b) (c)

E-mail ID: Mobile Phone

3.

(a) (b) (c)

Number: Respondent No. 1: E-mail ID: Mobile Phone Number:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

4.

(a)

Main category classification:

(b) 5. 6. 7.

Sub classification:

Not to be listed before: Similar / Pending matter: Criminal Matters: (a) Whether accused / convict has surrendered Yes (b) (c) (d) (e) FIR No. Police Station: Sentence Awarded: Sentence Undergone: Date: No

8.

Land Acquisition Matters: (a) (b) (c) Date of Section 4 notification: Date of Section 6 notification: Date of Section 17 notification:

9. 10.

Tax Matters: State the tax effect: Special Category: (First petitioner/appellant only)
Senior citizen > 65 Years Aid Case SC/ST Woman /child Disabled Legal

In custody

11. 12.

Vehicle number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters: Decided cases with citation:

Date:

25.02.2014 (Name)

AOR for petitioner(s) / Appellant(s) MS. USHA NANDINI V. 1925

Registration No.

SYNOPSIS The Petitioner is a political party registered under section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 with effect from 03.01.2011 and is represented by its National President Dr. D.K. Giri. The Petitioner files the present Writ Petition as a pro bono publico to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 33 and Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Petitioner is filing the present petition primarily for repealing the provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which promotes the situation where a person files nomination paper from two constituencies and manages to win from both the constituencies and on winning from both the constituencies he is bound by the existing law to vacate on of the seats thereby forcing a unwarranted byelection and its related expenses. It is submitted that in such situations being representative of a particular constituency the elected candidate should bear the cost of the entire bye election in the vacated constituency. The Petitioner further submits that a person who vacates a seat, in such a situation, he/she not only impose/put additional burden of cost of entire un-called bye- election on the citizen of the country but also acts against the fundamental principles of representative democracy as well as distorts the faith of people who have elected him/her. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State.

Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides that a person can contest a general election or a group of bye-elections or biennial elections from a maximum of two constituencies. Further, Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 says that if a person is elected to more than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State (some states have a Legislative Council or Vidhan Parishad as well, along with the Vidhan Sabha), then he/she can only hold on to one of the seats that he/she won in the election. If the candidate manages to win from both constituencies, then section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 becomes applicable and the vacation of the one of the two seats won by the candidate results in bye-election for the vacated seat, which is a tedious process, one which is, needless to say, expensive, as the money that is spent for this is taxpayer money. The provision allows candidates to fall back upon a contingency if they are to lose the election to a seat. There have been several cases where a person contests election from two constituencies, and wins from both. In such a situation he vacates the seat in one of the two constituencies. The consequence is that a byeelection would be required from one constituency which would result in financial burden on the public exchequer and the public would be forced to participate in an unwarranted and forced bye-election.

It is submitted that under the current law a candidate can contest from two constituencies, but has to vacate one of the seats within 10 days necessitating a bye-election. It is submitted that, in the event of the person winning both seats from which he/she contests for in a bye-election for the seat, which he/she will ultimately vacate, involves avoidable labour and expenditure. The provision of law is very often misused by the contestants as a security / insurance at the cost of the general public/ taxpayer which is forced to bear the burden of a candidates fancy. COST OF CONDUCTING ELECTIONS The General Elections of India are the worlds biggest election exercise. During the 2009 General Elections, an estimated 717 million strong electorate exercised their franchise through 1.3 million Electronic Voting Machines deployed in 834 thousand polling stations spread across the length and breadth of India to elect 543 Members of the Lok Sabha from amongst eight thousand candidates contesting the elections. The General Elections are conducted every five to six years since independence to decide as to who rules over 850 million Indians. It is an enormous exercise and a mammoth venture in terms of money spent. Hundreds and thousand of vehicles of various kinds are pressed on to the roads in the 543 parliamentary constituencies on behalf of thousands of aspirants to power, many days before the general elections are actually held. Millions of leaflets and many millions of posts are printed and distributed or pasted all over the country. Banners by the lakhs are hoisted. Flags go up, walls are painted, and hundreds of thousands of loudspeakers play out the loud exhortations and extravagant promises. VIPs and VVIPs

come and go, some of them in helicopters and air taxis. According to the Government of Indias Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department), the official expenditures for the conduct of elections have been increasing steeply in each successive general election. Without adjusting for inflation, the estimated cost of the 2004 general election is 125 times greater than the cost of the first general election held in 1952. For the 15 general elections held in India to date (from 1952 to 2009), the official costs as computed by the government for Lok Sabha elections since 1952. In 1967, the exercise cost the exchequer only Rs 10.79 Crores. This figure rose steadily to Rs 11.6 Crores in 1971, Rs 23.03 Crores in 1977, Rs 54.77 Crores in 1980, Rs 81.51 Crores in 1984 and Rs 154.22 Crores in 1989. The government's election expenses shot up enormously in 1991 to Rs 359.10 Crores, Rs 597.34 Crores in 1996, Rs 666.22 Crores in 1998, and Rs 880.0 Crores in 1999, in 2004 it rose to 1300 Crores. According to a study conducted by the Center for Media Studies various parties and government spent an estimated Rs. 10,000 Crores for the conduct of the 2009 elections. The Government spent about 20% of the total expenses including Rs. 1300 Crores in addition to which Rs.700 Crores were spent by various governmental agencies for photo identity cards, EVMs, Polling Booth etc.

ELECTION MACHINERY

The responsibility for conducting the elections to the Lok Sabha is vested in the Election Commission of India according to the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The Election Commission is assisted at the State level by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, who is appointed by the Election Commission in consultation with the State government. The Chief Electoral Officer is assisted by District Election Officers, Electoral Registration Officers, and Returning Officers at the constituency level. In addition, the Election Commission co-opts a large number of officials from the Central (or federal) and State governments for about two months during each General Election, for conducting the elections. About 5 million officials were deployed during the 2009 General Election. PROPOSED REFORMS The Election Commission of India has, on many occasions, proposed a change to this provision. In the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms that was prepared by the Core-Committee on Electoral Reforms, a part of the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in collaboration with the Election Commission and released in 2010, the Election Commission at Issue No.6.5 has expressly

recommended restricting the number of seats from which a person can contest from in a particular election. The Election Commission has also, in fact, proposed that if this provision was not changed, then if a person contested from two seats, he/she should bear the entire cost of the bye-election to the seat that he/she decides to vacate in the event the person wins both seats.

However the Governments have not considered this issue seriously and so this provision stands as it is, and the taxpayer money is being used to conduct the bye-election when the candidate wins both seats. It is submitted that it is often noticed in Indian political senario that an elected leader resigns from the party and joins new party and the burden of such also resignation compels by election. It is also noticed that if parliament election is declared then some assembly members file nomination dor the parliamnt seats and if they are elected, then they force upon the voters an unwarrented by election to assembly constituencies vacated by them. There have also been instances when political parties induct non elected leaders into cabinet and force some one to leave seats forcing a byelection on the public. By election itself causes huge expenses and is a drain on the public exchequer. It is submitted that the law should be stteled as to when a by-election should be conducted. It is respectfully submitted that a byelection should not be forced upon the public without death or serious ailment of the candidates. The political parties should not be allowed to fight their internal disputes at the cost of the general public and public funds by forcing by-elections. An elected representative shall not be entitled to resign from the post prematurely other, than on the ground of physical illness, without depositing the entire costs of the election in which he has declared as elected, and in case he failed to deposit the cost of the election the same

should be recovered by the Election Commission just like the dues of land revenue. It is submitted that the Election Commission's (EC) proposal to bar a candidate from contesting in more than one constituency, or seek reimbursement of the expenditure for holding the bye-election is perfectly reasonable and fair and should be implementd to save the citizens from an unwanted hardship and to create a more fair and transparent electroral mechanism. The merit of this proposal could be enhanced by extending it to occasions when: a) An incumbent MLA contests for Lok Sabha, and on election vacates the assembly seat and vice versa; b) A candidate may contest for both assembly and Lok Sabha when elections are held simultaneously; and c) An elected member vacates a seat and seeks re-election in the ensuing bye-election to establish his hold over the electorate, or to change party affiliation. In all these cases, the politician is clearly seeking to maximise his bargaining power or further career prospects, and the people should not be made to pay for the caprice or political insurance or greed of politicians. The state should be spared the expense in one of the two ways. First, apart from barring multiple contests, an incumbent in a House must be barred from contesting another election; a candidate vacating a seat in a House

must be barred from contesting in a bye-election for the same House, or another House; and a candidate must be banned from contesting for two different Houses simultaneously. Secondly, if any candidate does contest for a second office, or vacates a seat and contests in a bye-election, he / she must be made to pay the cost of that bye-election. Since the winner can represent only one constituency, all of them had to later vacate one of the seats forcing a by election in that constituency which involves additional expenses and effort. So in 2004, the Election Commission (EC) had proposed to do away with the process of candidates contesting elections from two seats at the same time, which could not be implemented till date and the interference of this Hon'ble Court is highly warranted. Hence This Writ Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITON (C) NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: VOTERS PARTY THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. D.K.GIRI PARTY OFFICE, A-3, KAVERI APARTMENTS, PLOT NO. 111/9, KISHANGARH, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI 110070. VERSUS 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CABINET SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI.

PETITIONER

2.

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSINER OFFICE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 RESPONDENTS

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to amend / reform the provisions under

Sub-Section 6 and Sub-Section 7 of Section 33, Section 70 and any other relevant Sections of The Representation of The People Act, 1951 as proposed by the Election Commission of India and Law Commission of India on various occassions in order to restrict a candidate from filing nomination papers for more than one constituencies so as to reduce and to avoid unwarrented expense on the exchequer or in the alternative in case the provisions are not amended/reformed and the candidates who contests from two seats, then he/she should bear the cost of the entire bye election to the seat that he or she decides to vacate in the event of his/her winning from both the seats as penalty or fine. 1.A That the petitioner challenging the Constitutional validity of the above said provisions of The Representation of The People Act, 1951 and this Honble Court is the appropriate authority to approach for the same and hence no need to approach any other authority for any other reliefs. 2. The Petitioner is a political party registered under section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 with effect from 03.01.2011 represented by its National President Dr. D.K. Giri.The Petitioner files the present Writ Petition as a pro bono publico to challenge the constitutional validityof Section 33 (6), 33 (7), Section 70 Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Section 33 (6) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper: Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the returning officer for election in the same constituency. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election, (a) in the case of a general election to the House of the People (whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies), from more than two

Parliamentary constituencies; (b) in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies), from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State; (c) in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the State; (d) in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, for filling more than two such seats;

(e) in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Parliamentary constituencies; (f) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State from two or more Assembly constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Assembly constituencies; (g) in the case of bye-elections to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, which are held simultaneously, for filling more than two such seats; (h) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council from two or more Council constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Council constituencies. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more bye-elections shall be deemed to be held

simultaneously where the notification calling such byeelections are issued by the Election Commission under section 147, section 149, section 150 or, as the case may be, section 151 on the same date. Section 70 Election to more than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the

legislature of a State.If a person is elected to more than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, then, unless within the prescribed time he resigns all but one of the seats 8[by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, or to such other authority or officer as may be prescribed], all the seats shall become vacant. (Emphasis Supplied) 3. It is submitted that the Petitioner is filing the present petition preliminary for repealing the provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which promotes the situation where a person files nomination paper from two constituencies and manages to win from both the constituencies and on winning from both the constituencies he is bound by the existing law to vacate on of the seats thereby forcing a unwarranted byelection and its related expenses. It is submitted that in such situations being representative of a particular constituency the elected candidate should bear the cost of the entire bye election in the vacated constituency. The Petitioner further submits that a person who vacates a seat, in such a situation, he/she not only impose/put additional burden of cost of entire un-called bye- election on the citizen of the country but also acts against the fundamental principles of representative democracy as well as distorts the faith of people who have elected him/her.

4.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), which provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State.

5.

It is submitted that the Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides that a person can contest a general election or a group of bye-elections or biennial elections from a maximum of two constituencies.

6.

It is further submitted that the Section 70 of the RPA says that if a person is elected to more than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State (some states have a Legislative Council or Vidhan Parishad as well, along with the Vidhan Sabha), then he/she can only hold on to one of the seats that he/she won in the election.

7.

It is submitted that if the candidate manages to win from both constituencies, then Section 70 of the RPA becomes applicable, and the vacating of the one of the two seats won by the candidate results in bye-election for the vacated seat, which can be a tedious process, one which is, needless to say, expensive, as the money that is spent for this is taxpayer money. It is difficult to ascertain the nature of the legislative intent that went into the passing of this statute, however the provision allows candidates to fall back upon a contingency if they are to lose the election to a seat.

8.

It is submitted that there have been several cases where a person contests election from two constituencies, and wins from both. In such a situation he vacates the seat in one of the two constituencies. The consequence is that a bye-election would be required from one constituency which apart from involving avoidable labour and expenditure on the conduct of that bye-election.

9.

It is submitted that the winner can represent only one constituency, all of them had to later vacate one of the seats forcing a by election in that constituency which involves additional expenses and effort. So in 2004, the Election Commission (EC) had proposed to do away with the process of candidates contesting elections from two seats at the same time. The proposed electoral reforms presented by the then CEC, T. S. Krishna Murthy to the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on July 30, 2004. The report is divided into two parts. At ISSUE No. 04 the then CEC mentioned to the Prime Minister of India that, 4. Restriction on the Number of Seats from which One May Contest The Commission is of the view that the law should be amended to provide that a person cannot contest from more than one constituency at a time. The Commission will also add that in case the legislature is of the view that the provision facilitating contesting from two constituencies as existing at present is to be retained, then there should be an express provision in the law requiring a person who contests and wins election from two seats, resulting in a bye-election from one of

the two constituencies, to deposit in the government account an appropriate amount of money being the expenditure for holding the bye-election. The amount could be Rs.5,00,000/for State Assembly and Council election and Rs.10,00,000/for election to the House of the People. A true Copy of the proposed electoral reforms presented by the then CEC, T. S. Krishna Murthy to the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on July 30, 2004 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/1(PAGES 10. TO ).

It is submitted that the Election Commission of India has, on many occasions, proposed a change to the provision of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951. In the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms that was prepared by the Core-Committee on Electoral Reforms, a part of the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in collaboration with the Election Commission and released in 2010, the Election Commission at Issue No.

6.5 has expressly recommended restricting the number of seats from which a person can contest from in a particular election. A true Copy of the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms that was prepared by the Core-Committee on Electoral Reforms, a part of the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in collaboration with the Election Commission and released in 2010 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/2 (PAGES TO ).

11.

It is submitted that under the current law a candidate can contest from two constituencies, but has to vacate one of the seats within 10 days necessitating a bye-election. It is submitted that, in the event of the person winning both seats from which he/she contests for in a bye-election for the seat, which he/she will ultimately vacate, involves an avoidable labour and expenditure and a burden of the public exchequer. The provision of law is very often misused by the contestants as a security / insurance at cost of the general public/ taxpayer which is forced to bear the burden of a candidates fancy. The Election Commission has also, in fact, proposed that if this provision was not changed, then if a person contested from two seats, he/she should bear the cost of the bye-election to the seat that he/she decides to vacate in the event the person wins both seats. However, the Government did, not consider these proposals, seriously and so this provision stands as it is, and the taxpayer money is being used to conduct the bye-election when a candidate wins both seats.

12.

It is submitted that it is often noticed in Indian political senario that a elected leader resigns from the party and joins new party and the burden of such resignation compels by election. It is also noticed that if parliament election is declared then some assembly members file nomination and if they are elected, then they force upon the voters an unwarrented by election to assembly constituencies. There have also been instances when political parties induct non elected leaders into cabinet and force some one to leave seats forcing a by-election on

the public. By election itself causes huge expenses and is a drain on the public exchequer. It is submitted that the law should be stteled as to when a by-election should be conducted. 13. It is respectfully submitted that a byelection should not be forced upon the public without death or serious ailment of the candidates. The political parties should not be allowed to fight their internal disputes at the cost of the general public by forcing by-elections. An elected representative shall not be entitled to resign from the post prematurely other, than on the ground of physical illness, without depositing the entire costs of the election in which he is declared as elected, and in case he/ she fails to deposit the cost of the election the same should be recovered by the Election Commission just like the dues of land revenue. 14. It is submitted that the Election Commission's (EC) proposal to bar a candidate from contesting in more than one constituency, or seek reimbursement of the expenditure for holding the bye-election is perfectly reasonable and fair and should be implementd to save the citizens from an unwanted hardship and to create a more fair and transparent electroral mechanism. The merit of this proposal could be enhanced by extending it to occasions when: a) An incumbent MLA contests for Lok Sabha, and on election vacates the assembly seat; b) A candidate may contest for both assembly and Lok Sabha when elections are held simultaneously; and

c)

An elected member vacates a seat and seeks re-election in the ensuing bye-election to establish his hold over the electorate, or to change party affiliation.

15.

It is submitted that in all these cases, the politicians are clearly seeking to maximise his bargaining power or further career prospects, and the people should not be made to pay for the caprice or political insurance or greed of politicians. The state should be spared the expense in one of two ways. First, apart from barring multiple contests, an incumbent in a House must be barred from contesting another election; a candidate vacating a seat in a House must be barred from contesting in a bye-election for the same House, or another House; and a candidate must be banned from contesting for two different Houses simultaneously. Secondly, if any candidate does contest for a second office, or vacates a seat and contests in a bye-election, he must be made to pay the cost of that bye-election.

16.

The Petitioner submits that the Union of India has not considered or acted positively towards implementing the recommendation of the Election Commission to amend/reform the provisions under the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, restricting any candidate from filing of nomination papers from more than one constituency, alternatively, if the provisions are not amended/reformed a candidate contesting from two seats, should bear the expenses for bye election to the seat that he/she decides to vacate in the event, both the seats are won by that person/candidate, as a surcharge for the reason that

whenever bye-election is required to be conducted by the Election Commission for the vacated seat, the Election Commission has to exercise all its tedious efforts, one which needless to say expensive and would result in financial loss to the public exchequer. 17. The Petitioner further refers that Mr. Binayak Ray in his book Sustainable Development and Good Governance Issue: A Case of Redical Reassessment, has dealt with this issues as follow: currently many politicials do not bother to serve their constituency because they can stand from as many as constituenty as they wish. This is not only a mockery of representing a particular constituency, but also requires new election if a candidate is elected from more than one constituency. There is no reason why tax payers money should be spent because a particular candidate was not sure whether he/she should be elected from a particular constituency. Therefore no person should be allowed to stand from two constituencies, and no person should be allowed to stand in an election if he/she remains a member of any other legislature in the country. This will force political parties to put up serious candidates, and not take a chance with a particular electorate. 18. The Petitioner is filing the present writ petition for the welfare of the citizens of India who are paying tax out of their hard earned money and which is unfortunately over spent for conducting

byelection due to vacation of seat by a candidate who files more than one nomination papers in more than one constituencies solely to satisfy his insatiable lust for power at the cost of common public. The Petitioner is filing the instant petition on the following grounds among others: GROUNDS A. Because the moment a person is allowed to file nomination papers from more than one constituency, an un-called byeelection starts clouding among the constituencies where he/she files his nomination papers. B. Because a person files nomination papers from two constituencies and manage to win from both the constituencies in such situation an extra, un-called burden of expenses of bye election is being imposed on the citizen of India. C. Because filling of nomination paper as well as vacating a constituency becomes his/her sole discretion and once he/she is accorded with the constitutional position, as being representative of a particular constituency he/she should bear the burden of the entire bye -election expenses. D. Because conducting a bye-election for the reason of vacation of seat by a candidate who has filed his nomination form, from more than one constituencies not only imposes expenses of an un-called bye- election on the citizen of the country but also acts against the fundamental principles of representative

democracy which distorts the faith of people who have elected him/her. E. Because the provisions under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 has been grossly misused by the politicians, which encourages an unethical political practice rather than having concern about serving people within their constituency. F. Because conducting a bye -election for the reason of vacation of seat by a candidate who managed to succeed in more than one constituency not only cause financial burden over public exchequre of the country but also puts the entire constitutional and administrative machinery into motion, which is waste of time and resources. G. Because when a person files his nomination from more than one constituency, then, from the very beginning, the person contesting the election is very much aware that he ha to vacate one seat, if he wins both the seats. Vacating any of the two seats is his own discretion and accordingly he ought to be burdened with the cost of bye- election for exercising his/her discretion. H. Because the Election Commission on many occasions approached the 1st Respondent with a proposal to

amend/reform the provisions under the said act restricting any candidate from filing of nomination papers from more than one constituencies, alternatively, if the provisions would not be amended/reformed in that case, a candidate contested from

two seats, ought to bear the cost of bye election to the seat that he/she decides to vacate in the event both the seats are won by that person, as a penalty or fine. I. Because the Respondent has not taken any steps for reforming/amending the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, despite Election Commission of Indias numerous representation/notification for the same. J. Because the Petitioner has filed the instant petition with the limited prayer to issue a direction to the Respondent to consider the proposals of the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner proposes to restrict a candidate from filing nomination paper from more than one constituencies, alternatively, in case the provisions are not amended/reformed, and the candidate contests from two seats, ought to bear the cost of bye election to the seat that he or she decides to vacate in the event of his/her winning from both the seats as surcharge. 10. The Petitioners have not filed any other petition in this Honble Court or in any other High Court seeking the same reliefs as are being sought in the present Writ Petition. 11. The Petitioner submits that this Honble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the instant Petition. PRAYER In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

i).

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction(s) in the nature of mandamus declaring that the provisions under Sub-Section 6 and Sub-Section 7 of Section 33, Section 70 and any other relevant Sections in The Representation of The People Act, 1951 which permits a candidate to contest from two constituency at a time in a single election as unconstitutional; and or

ii).

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to implement the proposals of the Election Commission of India to restrict a candidate from filing nomination papers from more than one constituency; alternatively, if the candidate contest the elections from two constituencies and wins from both seats then the entire cost of the byelection for the seat vacated in the particular constituency should be recovered as penalty / fine from the vacating candidate, and or;

iii)

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to implement a proposal of imposing financial obligation to the tune of entire election expenses to the concerned constituency on the candidates who opt or consider to contest from two constituencies thereby blocking two seats from the impending election and;

iv)

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 not to permit any candidate who are holding the post of MLA in any State Legislative Assembly/ Council or Rajya Sabha to contest for the Lok Sabha

Election or in any Legislative Assembly election and vice versa, and or vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to recover the entire election expenses in the following situations: 1. An incumbent MLA contests for Lok Sabha, and on election vacates the Assembly seat and vice versa; 2. A candidate who contest for both Assembly and Lok Sabha when elections are held simultaneously; and 3. An elected member who vacates a seat and seeks re-election in ensuing bye-election to establish his hold over the electorate, or to change party affiliation. vii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to furnish the details pertaining to the reasons and expenditure of the byelections conducted in India since 1952. v) Pass such other order or further orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER, AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY. Filed By: DRAWN BY: MR. DEEPAK PRAKASH MR. BIJU. P. RAMAN ADVOCATES MS. USHA NANDINI V. Advocate for petitioner New Delhi Date: 25.02.2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: VOTERS PARTY THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. D.K.GIRI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS AFFIDAVIT

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

I, Dr. D.K. Giri, National President of Voters Party, S/o Late Dr. L.K. Giri, Aged 54 Years, R/o. A-4, Kaveri Apartments, Plot No. 111/9, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:1. That I am the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition and as such aware of the facts and records of the case and averments made in the instant Petition and am competent to swear this Affidavit. 2. That the statement of the facts incorporated in the above Writ Petition at page to and para no. to and the application for

direction are true to my knowledge and belief based on records of the case and the legal submissions made therein are based on counsels advice which I believe to be true and correct. 3. That the Annexure to the accompanying Petition are a copy of are true to their respective originals. 4. I the above named deponent hereby verify that what is stated in the above paras 1 to 3 of my affidavit is true and correct. DEPONENT VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi on this day of day of February, 2014 that the

contents of the foregoing affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from. Verified at New Delhi on this day of February, 2014. DEPONENT