TWO SEAT RULE: PUTTING POLITICAL INTEREST ABOVE PUBLIC INTEREST

Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1

II. INDIAN LAWS BACKING THE PROVISION...........................................................................1

III. OPINION OF THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION...............................................................1

IV. BENEFIT TO THE POLITICAL LEADERS..........................................................................2

V. PUBLIC INTEREST AFFECTED BY THE RULE.....................................................................3

VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................3

I. INTRODUCTION
In the political system in our country, it is a game plan for the political leader to contest from
two seat at a time to safeguard their victory. the Two Seat rule does not serve any purpose in
the electoral system but only protect the political risk of the candidate. It affects the public
exchequer. It can be seen that the person who vacates the seat is against the fundamental and
core principle of the constitution of India. When the public choose a candidate so that he can
develop the constituency during the term period, but it cannot be allowed to abandon the seat
as soon as the wining the seat.
II. INDIAN LAWS BACKING THE PROVISION
Under section 33 of the representation of people act 1 says that a person can contest the polls
from more than one seat but to the maximum of two seats. The Section 33 was amended in
year 1996 by inserting sub - Section (7)2, prior to which there was no restriction on the
candidate to contest from any number of constituencies. Although it can be seen that the
amendment was not able to make the justification to keep the seats even to two. However, the
Section 70 lay down that the candidate who has won the two seats in election has to vacate it
within a period of ten days.3 Thus, the one seat will be vacated again, and election
commission have to conduct bye election again on that seat. It will harass the electorate and
the voting turnout will be very less due to the election fatigue.

1
Section 33, Representation of People Act, 1951.
2
Section 33 (7), Representation of People Act, 1951.
3
Section 70, Representation of People Act, 1951.
It can be seen that both the provision is contrary to each other. One is giving the person right
to contest and other is restrict the contested person to keep both the seat. It looks irrational. It
simply allows the candidate to miscue the electoral system of our country.
III. OPINION OF THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION
The election commission is the regulatory body which conducts election in the country. The
body in their report recommended that the provision to contest from the two seats should be
amended and made it to the one seat. But the proposal was not accepted by then government.
The report further mentions that “One leader one constituency should be the rule adopted by
the electoral system in India. As like the one person one vote rule in India.”
Moreover, The law commission in its report 4 agreed with the election commission proposal 5
about the amending the Section 336 to make it restrict to the one seat only. It was also been
proposed by the Goswami Committee in 1990 7, the 170th law commission report in 19998 and
the Background Paper on Electoral Reforms prepared by the Legislative Department of the
Law Ministry in 2010.9 The amount which was suggested by the election commission was Rs
5 lakh for assembly election and Rs 10 lakh for parliament election.
IV. BENEFIT TO THE POLITICAL LEADERS
The trend from contesting from the two seats can be seen from the time of independence.
Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi contested from two parliamentary constituencies which
were Medak in Andhra Pradesh and Rae Bareli in UP in the year in 1980. Then in 1999,
Congress president Sonia Gandhi contested from Bellary in Karnataka and Amethi in UP.
There are many other leaders like Rahul Gandhi (Amethi and Wayanad) and Narendra Modi
(Varanasi and Vadodara) etc.
The main reason for these leader contesting from two seats can be seen as because they may
not be confident of winning from one seat. They keep the second seat as the backup.
The other reason can be that the leader wants to show its influence on the public by
contesting two seats from different region of country. Like we can take the case of 2014
election, when the prime minister candidate Nagendra Modi contested form Varanasi in Uttar
Pradesh and Vadodara in Gujarat.
4
244h Report, Electoral Disqualifications, Government of India, February 2014.
5
Chapter 4, Proposed Electoral Reforms, Election Commission of India, 2004
6
Section 33, Representation of People Act, 1951.
7
Electoral Reforms, Goswami Committee, Committee on Electoral Reform, Government of India, (1990)
available at https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral
%20Reforms.pdf last accessed on 14 June 2019.
8
170th Report, Reform of Electoral Laws, Law Commission of India, Government of India, 1999.
9
Background Paper, Electoral Reforms, Legislative Department, Law Ministry, 2010 available at
http://legislative.gov.in/nationalandregionalconsultati/background-paper-electoral-reforms last accessed on 15
June 2019.
 V. PUBLIC INTEREST AFFECTED BY THE RULE
The proposal recommended by the election commission10 was elapsed after the period of time
as government were not inclined to change the rule to serve their political interest above the
inserts to the public. Even the form chief T.R. Krishnamurthy election commissioner stated
that there is no rational explanation for allowing a candidate to contest from more than one
constituency in the election.
Some scholar mentions that depositing money by the candidate from two seats may not be the
way out. Money cannot be considered as the issue for the candidate fighting from two
constituencies. The candidate will not have any problem to pay minimal amount of five to ten
lacs. It can be seen that not only the election commission has to spend the money in the re-
election but the person who is casting the vote will also spend some amount in travelling or
other thing leading into crores of rupees altogether. Moreover, the cost of conducting the
election cannot be neglected. In 2019 election it is been reported that approximately $7
billion money was spent on 543 constituency.11
Some scholar suggests that when the person vacate a seat after winning, then the better
alternative option will be to declare the candidate who secured the second highest vote as
winner than going for the election of that seat. If we look at the suggest, it does contrary to
the very fundamental principle of the democratic election that is the person with the highest
vote to win the seat. It cannot be a feasible option to go for. Just for saving the money, the
constitution of the India basic principle cannot be compromised.

VI. CONCLUSION
As the government has failed to amend the rule which is contrary to the interest of the public.
As after recommendation of election commission law report,12 different committees, the
government has not taken any thing to look into its amendment. It is the right time for the
Supreme Court of India to look into the matter and decide the issue in favour of public
interest. Moreover, It can be seen that two-seat rule is same as the issue of bigamy in India.
The laws of India punish the bigamy committed by the person. When the person in India is
not allowed to marry twice when having one spouse. Then the candidate should not be
allowed to marry more than one seat and divorce the other seat as soon as wining the case. It
goes wrong to the vary basic concept in India.
10
Chapter 4, Proposed Electoral Reforms, Election Commission of India, 2004.
11
Why India’s election is among the world’s most expensive: available at
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/why-indias-election-is-among-the-worlds-
most-expensive/articleshow/68367262.cms?from=mdr accessed on 15 June 2019.
12
Chapter 4, Proposed Electoral Reforms, Election Commission of India, 2004.
Further, recently the government has proposed one country one election in the parliament.
The proposal will not be fulfilled in the real sense until the one candidate one constituency is
been made. So, it is the time to amend the section and remove the two-seat rule for the laws
of India.