Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies. 2. In 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies. 3. 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. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2 (Statement 2 only). This is based on the legal framework governing elections in India, specifically the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
- Statement 1 is incorrect: While there was originally no limit, Section 33(7) of the RPA, 1951, was amended in 1996 to restrict a candidate from contesting from more than two constituencies in a single general election or bye-elections.
- Statement 2 is correct: In the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, prior to the 1996 amendment, Shri Devi Lal contested from three seats (Sikar, Rohtak, and Ferozepur). He also contested from three seats in the 1989 elections.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: There is currently no rule requiring a candidate or their party to bear the cost of bye-elections if they vacate a seat. Although the Election Commission has proposed that candidates should bear such costs, it has not yet been codified into law.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Reform vs. Reality' trap. Statement 1 tests standard static polity (RPA 1951), while Statement 3 disguises a well-known Election Commission *proposal* as an existing *rule*. Statement 2 is obscure trivia, but it becomes irrelevant if you successfully eliminate 1 and 3 based on core concepts.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: What is the maximum number of Lok Sabha constituencies from which a candidate is legally permitted to contest in a single Indian general election under current Indian law?
- Statement 2: Did Chaudhary Devi Lal contest from three Lok Sabha constituencies in the 1991 Indian Lok Sabha election?
- Statement 3: Under Indian election law or rules, is a candidate's political party required to bear the cost of by-elections for Lok Sabha constituencies vacated when that candidate wins multiple constituencies?
- Explicitly states a candidate would not be eligible to contest from more than two Parliamentary or assembly constituencies at a general election.
- Frames the restriction as applying to both general elections and by-elections held simultaneously, indicating a legal/administrative rule.
- Refers to contestants being 'restricted to two constituencies', directly answering the question about the maximum permitted number.
Identifies the 1991 general election (the 10th) and its date, anchoring the year in question.
A student could use this date to look up 1991 nomination lists or constituency-wise candidature records to check Devi Lal's entries.
Describes Chaudhary Devi Lal as a prominent political leader who formed Lok Dal and contested elections (earlier in 1987), establishing he was an active electoral politician.
Knowing he was an active leader, a student might reasonably check whether a leader of his stature contested multiple seats in the 1991 general election.
Explains that the country is divided into 543 territorial constituencies with one representative elected from each.
A student could use this to understand that multiple separate constituency candidacies would require separate nominations per constituency and then check nomination/affidavit records for multiple entries.
Summarises the first-past-the-post system and how seat wins relate to vote shares, implying strategic contesting by parties/leaders can affect outcomes.
A student might infer that high-profile leaders sometimes contest more than one seat for strategic reasons, and therefore search 1991 candidate lists for such instances (including Devi Lal).
Notes the post-1989 era of multi-party politics and regional party importance, a context in which regional leaders might take atypical electoral steps.
A student could use this political context to justify investigating whether a regional leader like Devi Lal contested multiple constituencies in 1991.
- Explicitly states that when a candidate wins two seats, a bye-election is necessitated "at the cost of the exchequer," indicating the public/state bears the cost rather than the candidate's party.
- Links the requirement to section 70 of the RPA, showing the legal cause of the by-election and its fiscal burden on the exchequer.
- Provides an explicit ECI cost estimate for by-elections (approximately Rs. 10 crore per constituency), treating these as public election expenses.
- Notes that bye-elections will probably cost more, reinforcing that the financial burden is borne by the election machinery/exchequer, not by a political party.
Gives the rule that candidates have statutory limits on election spending for a constituency (Rs. 25 lakh for Lok Sabha).
A student could use this to ask whether by-election costs are treated as candidate election expenses (limited) or as separate administrative/state costs, which affects whether a party must pay.
States the time limit that by-elections must be held within six months of a vacancy, showing by-elections are a formal, regular process.
One could combine this with knowledge of who organizes elections (Election Commission) to infer whether the administrative burden/cost is typically borne by the state authority or by parties.
Notes that the Election Commission supplies rolls and other prescribed materials to candidates of recognized parties and specifies party entitlements regarding contributions.
A student might infer a pattern where the Election Commission provides logistical support (suggesting state bears some costs) while parties/candidates handle campaign spending, so test whether by-election conduct costs are similarly borne by the EC/state.
Mentions that certain party-related expenditures (travelling expenditure of campaigning leaders) are treated differently from candidate election expenses.
Use this distinction to probe whether costs associated with running an election (by-election administration) are separate from party/candidate expenses and thus not required to be paid by the party.
Explains that Lok Sabha elections are organized constituency-wise under first-past-the-post and the Election Commission issues notifications for constitution of the House.
Combine with the EC's organizational role to reason that the EC/state likely handles election administration (and thus some costs), which is relevant to whether parties are legally required to pay by-election costs.
- [THE VERDICT]: Mixed Bag. Statement 1 is a Sitter (Laxmikanth). Statement 2 is a Bouncer (Historical Trivia). Statement 3 is a Trap (Proposal framed as Law).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 – specifically Section 33(7) regarding the restriction on the number of seats a candidate can contest.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: (1) Pre-1996: No limit on constituencies (hence Devi Lal contested 3). (2) Post-1996 Amendment: Limit set to 2 constituencies. (3) RPA Section 70: If a person is elected to more than one seat, they must resign all but one within 14 days, or all seats become vacant. (4) ECI Proposal (2004): Proposed limiting candidates to 1 seat OR making the candidate/party pay for the by-election (Source of Stmt 3).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not memorize every election result. Instead, when a topic like 'Dual Candidacy' is in the news (Supreme Court petitions in 2018-2020), read the *editorials* discussing the history of the law. The Devi Lal example is frequently cited in legal commentaries to justify why the 1996 cap was introduced.
Defines the statutory limit that a candidate cannot contest from more than two constituencies in a single election.
High-yield for polity questions on electoral law and candidate eligibility; connects to topics on nomination rules, electoral reforms and judicial interpretation of election laws. Mastering this helps answer direct factual queries and apply the principle to related scenarios (by-elections, simultaneous polls).
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 82: Electoral Reforms > 584If! Ind;an PaUry > p. 584
Explains that each Lok Sabha constituency is single-member and decided by first-past-the-post, shaping why candidates might contest multiple seats.
Important for understanding electoral strategy, election outcomes, and comparative systems; links to topics on representation, constituency design and reform debates. Useful for analytical questions on why rules limit multiple nominations and the implications for party strategy.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 80: Elections > ELECTION PROCESSs > p. 576
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > First-Past-The-Post System > p. 225
Provides the context of how many constituencies exist (543 presently) and the Lok Sabha's maximum envisaged strength.
Core factual knowledge for polity and governance questions; connects to delimitation, representation by population, and constitutional provisions on house strength. Helps in quantitative reasoning questions about seats and regional representation.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Composition of Lok Sabha > p. 223
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: LEGISLATURE > Lok Sabha > p. 106
Identifying the year and ordinal number of a general election (for example, 1991 = 10th Lok Sabha election) is essential to place any candidate's activity in the correct electoral cycle.
High-yield for timeline questions: knowing election years and which Lok Sabha they correspond to helps answer questions about political careers, government formation, and chronology. Connects to topics on parliamentary history and political developments between successive elections; useful when associating leaders with specific electoral events.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 12: The Union Legislature > REFERENCES > p. 264
Understanding that the Lok Sabha is divided into territorial constituencies with one representative each frames questions about how many seats a candidate could realistically win or represent.
High-yield for questions on electoral rules and seat distribution: it clarifies the basic unit of Lok Sabha elections and links to topics on delimitation, representation, and electoral strategy (e.g., contesting multiple seats versus representing a seat). Useful when evaluating claims about candidacies across constituencies.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: LEGISLATURE > Lok Sabha > p. 106
The post-1989 multi-party, coalition-era changed electoral strategies of regional leaders, affecting where and how they contested elections.
High-yield for modern political history and party-system questions: explains the prominence of regional leaders, coalition dynamics, and strategic candidacies. Connects to studies of regional parties, Centre–State politics, and patterns of electoral alliances that UPSC often tests.
- Politics in India since Independence, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 8: Recent Developments in Indian Politics > Decline of Congress > p. 141
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 3: ELECTORAL POLITICS > 3.1 WHY ELECTIONS? Assembly Election in Haryana > p. 35
Establishes the statutory deadline within which a vacancy in Parliament must be filled by a by-election.
High-yield for UPSC because timelines for filling legislative vacancies are tested and connect to Representation of People Act procedures and Election Commission responsibilities; useful for questions on vacancy management and electoral administration.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 82: Electoral Reforms > 584If! Ind;an PaUry > p. 584
Vacating Seats (RPA Sec 68-70): If a candidate is elected to both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, they must choose one within 10 days; otherwise, the Rajya Sabha seat becomes vacant. If elected to two Lok Sabha seats, they must choose one within 14 days; otherwise, *both* seats become vacant.
The 'Wishlist Heuristic': Statement 3 claims a party 'should bear the cost'. This is a radical financial penalty. In Indian administrative law, such penalties are rare and would be headline news (like the Anti-Defection Law). Since you haven't read this in standard texts, it is likely a *proposal* by the ECI, not a *rule*. Eliminate 3. Statement 1 is false (limit is 2, not 3). Eliminating 1 and 3 leaves only Option B.
Mains GS2 (Electoral Reforms): Connect this to the 'Indrajit Gupta Committee' on State Funding of Elections. The debate on parties bearing by-election costs links to the broader theme of Decriminalization and Financial Accountability in politics.