ABSTRACT
The practice of one candidate contesting from multiple constituencies (OCMC) has been a persistent feature of India’s electoral democracy, despite several reform efforts. While the Constitution entrusts the Election Commission of India with oversight, the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 initially placed no restrictions and, even after the 1996 amendment, still permits a candidate to contest from two constituencies. This paper outlines the historical and legal background of OCMC and provides a critical assessment of its implications. It highlights the challenges of frequent by-elections, such as escalating financial costs, disproportionate advantages for ruling parties, repeated burdens on opposition candidates, and erosion of voter trust and democratic accountability. At the same time, this paper provides a comparative perspective by examining international practices, noting how most democracies, including the United Kingdom and European states, have abolished OCMC, while countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh still permit it in a limited form. Building on this analysis, this paper suggests potential reforms for India, including amending Section 33(7) of the RPA, 1951, to prohibit OCMC, recovering the costs of by-elections from vacating candidates, and restructuring the timing of by-elections to ensure fairness. In conclusion, this paper argues that while broad reforms such as “One Nation One Election” remain contentious, enforcing the principle of “One Candidate, One Constituency” offers a more immediate and practical measure to reduce electoral distortions, strengthen transparency, and reaffirm democratic values.
Keywords: Constituency, Democracy, Electoral Candidate, Transparency, Representation of the People Act.
- INTRODUCTION
“The strength of a democracy is not measured by the power of its leaders, but by the trust of its people.” – John W. Gardner[1]
The proposal of One Nation, One Election, simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, has dominated India’s electoral reform debates. While discussions focus on feasibility, costs, and political implications, the equally significant issue of one candidate contesting from multiple constituencies (OCMC) has received less attention. Since the first general elections in 1951–52, OCMC has been a recurring strategy for political leaders to secure personal victory, expand party influence, or project national appeal. Initially, the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, placed no limits, enabling candidates to contest several seats simultaneously. Winners, however, were compelled under Section 70 to vacate all but one, triggering by-elections. To curb this strain, Parliament amended the RPA in 1996, restricting candidates to two constituencies under Section 33(7). Despite this reform, the practice persists in parliamentary and assembly elections. OCMC poses serious challenges. By-elections impose financial and administrative burdens on the Election Commission and taxpayers. Ruling parties often gain structural advantages, while opposition candidates face disproportionate strain. Most importantly, it undermines democratic accountability, as voters see their representatives vacate seats soon after elections, eroding trust in the system. Internationally, advanced democracies such as the United Kingdom and most European nations have abolished OCMC, citing distortions in representation. In contrast, Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to permit it. India’s position—allowing two constituencies—remains a weak compromise. This research examines the historical, legal, and democratic dimensions of OCMC, drawing on doctrinal analysis of reports and debates, and argues for the principle of One Candidate, One Constituency (OCOC) as a necessary reform to strengthen democratic accountability.
[1]John W. Gardner (attributed), “The strength of a democracy is not measured by the power of its leaders, but by the trust of its people”, quoted in Quotations about Democracy, CivicEd (quotation collection), available at: https://www.civiced.org/quotations-about-democracy (last visited 25 Sept. 2025)