NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a six-year-old PIL challenging the credibility of Section 33( 7) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed a prospect to contest from two seats in any general election and said it was for Parliament to decide whether enacting the one candidate-one constituency law would even more electoral democracy.Prior to 1996, a candidate might contest from as lots of seats as he/she wished in a general election.

Parliament modified RP Act Section 33, with effect from August 1, 1996, to offer that he/she could contest a maximum of two seats in a basic election.The PIL by advocate-petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay had actually based his challenge to the validity of Section 33( 7) on the one individual, one vote concept used to voters and had demanded that candidates be restricted to contesting just one seat in a general election.

Standing for the petitioner, senior supporter Gopal Shankaranarayanan stated that many a time a candidate gets elected from both constituencies resulting in his/her forsaking among the seats that requires holding of byelection and huge expense to the exchequer.

Attorney general R Venkataramani stated he did not discover any reasoning behind the court entertaining a concern which fell in the legals domain.

The bench was unimpressed by the petitioners arguments and said, Permitting a prospect to contest from more than one seat in a parliamentary or state legislative election is a matter relating to legal policy, given that ultimately, it is Parliaments will to carry out whether political democracy in the nation is enhanced by granting such a choice as is offered under Section 33( 7 ).