निम्नलिखित कथनों पर विचार कीजिए :
- 1.भारत में ऐसा कोई कानून नहीं है जो प्रत्याशियों को किसी एक लोक सभा चुनाव में तीन निर्वाचन-क्षेत्रों से लड़ने से रोकता है।
- 2.1991 के लोक सभा चुनाव में श्री देवी लाल ने तीन लोक सभा निर्वाचन-क्षेत्रों से चुनाव लड़ा था।
- 3.वर्तमान नियमों के अनुसार, यदि कोई प्रत्याशी किसी एक लोक सभा चुनाव में कई निर्वाचन-क्षेत्रों से चुनाव लड़ता है, तो उसकी पार्टी को उन निर्वाचन-क्षेत्रों के उप-चुनावों का खर्च उठाना चाहिए, जिन्हें उसने खाली किया है बशर्ते वह सभी निर्वाचन-क्षेत्रों से विजयी हुआ हो।
उपर्युक्त कथनों में से कौन-सा/कौन-से सही है/हैं?
Read this question in English
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?
(a) 1 only · (b) 2 only · (c) 1 and 3 · (d) 2 and 3
उत्तर और व्याख्या · explanation in English
UPSC dropped this question from evaluation in its final answer key.
UPSC dropped this question from evaluation in its final answer key. The facts it tests: since a 1996 amendment, Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lets a person contest from at most two constituencies in a general election, and no rule makes a candidate's party pay for the resulting bye-election.
- ✗ 1. There is a law: Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allows a person to contest a general election from a maximum of two constituencies. It was inserted by a 1996 amendment; before that there was no limit.
- • 2. This is a point of election history, not of law, and it is left unjudged in this write-up; UPSC dropped the question from evaluation anyway.
- ✗ 3. No existing rule makes the party bear the cost. The Election Commission has only proposed that, if two-seat contests continue, the candidate (not the party) should pay for the bye-election to the seat he or she vacates.
Remember · Section 33(7), RPA 1951 (since 1996): a person may contest from a maximum of two constituencies. Under Section 70, a person winning both must leave one seat.
Sources
- Election Commission of India, Proposed Electoral Reforms (December 2016), Ch V: Section 33(7) of the RP Act, 1951 (copy hosted by ADR) ↗ · reference work “allows a person to contest a general election or a group of bye-elections or biennial elections from a maximum of two constituencies … Sub-section (7) was introduced through a 1996 amendment, prior to which there was no bar on the number of constituencies from which a candidate could contest. … in case the existing provisions are to be retained, a candidate contesting from two seats should bear the cost of the bye- election to the seat that the contestant decides to vacate”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2021, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). ·