11-March -2025-Special-Article

ELECTORAL REFORMS IN INDIA: ADDRESSING ONE CANDIDATE,MULTIPLE CONSTITUENCIES (OCMC)

The issue of electoral reforms in India has gained prominence, especially with discussions around the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) proposal. Another significant aspect of electoral reforms is “One Candidate, Multiple Constituencies” (OCMC), where a candidate contests elections from more than one constituency. Although legally allowed, this practice raises concerns about governance efficiency, financial burden, and public trust in the electoral system.

Provisions Related to OCMC

Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951

• Before 1996: No restriction on the number of constituencies a candidate could contest. Winning candidates could vacate all but one seat.
• After 1996: Section 33(7) of the RPA limits candidates to contesting from a maximum of two constituencies in a single election.
• Section 70: If a candidate wins multiple seats, they must retain only one. Failing to do so within the given time results in all seats being vacated.
• Section 151A: By-elections must be conducted within six months to fill vacated seats.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 101(1): A person cannot be a member of both Houses of Parliament. If elected to both, one seat must be vacated as per the law.
• Article 101(2): No individual can simultaneously be a member of Parliament and a State Legislature. If elected to both, the state seat must be vacated within a timeframe set by the President, or the parliamentary seat is forfeited.
• Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950: Prevents individuals from holding memberships in both Parliament and a state legislature at the same time.

Challenges of OCMC

1. Advantage to the Ruling Party

• Ruling parties often have better access to state resources, making it easier for them to secure wins in by-elections, limiting the opposition’s chances.

2. Financial Burden on Public Funds

• Frequent by-elections due to multiple-seat victories significantly increase electoral expenses.
• For example, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections cost approximately Rs 6,931 crore, while additional by-elections contributed another Rs 130 crore.
• Political parties also spend massive amounts, estimated at Rs 1.35 lakh crore, raising concerns about financial transparency and the influence of unaccounted money in elections.

3. Parachute Candidacy Concerns

• A parachute candidate is someone contesting from a constituency where they have little to no local presence.
• Such candidates often lack engagement with local voters, sidelining grassroots leaders and causing dissatisfaction within their parties.

4. Administrative Disruptions

• Frequent elections lead to repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), delaying government decision-making and policy implementation.
• Electoral staff and security forces are frequently deployed, adding to administrative strain.

5. Breach of Voter Trust

• Elections should prioritize the electorate’s interests, but OCMC often benefits politicians more than voters.
• It promotes leader-centric politics rather than issue-based governance, reducing political accountability.

6. Violation of Fundamental Rights

• The practice could be seen as undermining Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, by depriving voters of a stable representation in their chosen constituency.

Global Practices on OCMC

• Australia: Legislators must resign before contesting elections for another parliamentary house.
• United Kingdom: OCMC has been prohibited since 1983 to maintain clear representation and accountability.
• Italy: Candidates cannot contest both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies simultaneously.
• Pakistan & Bangladesh: Candidates can contest multiple seats but must vacate all but one after winning.

Suggested Reforms to Regulate OCMC

1. Ban on OCMC

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) and the 255th Law Commission Report (2015) have recommended banning multiple-seat contests.
• Implementing the “One Candidate, One Constituency (OCOC)” rule would enhance electoral fairness and strengthen democracy.

2. Recovering Bye-Election Costs

• Candidates who vacate a seat should bear the cost of conducting the by-election.
• This would discourage unnecessary multiple-seat contests and reduce public expenditure.

3. Delayed Bye-Elections

• Extending the cooling-off period for by-elections to one year would:

• Allow defeated candidates more preparation time.
• Reduce the ruling party’s undue advantage in frequent elections.

4. Mandatory Resignation Before Contesting

• Candidates holding an existing electoral position should resign before filing nominations for another seat.
• This would ensure commitment to their current role and prevent strategic seat-hopping.

Conclusion

The electoral process in India demands extensive financial and administrative resources. The practice of contesting from multiple constituencies leads to unnecessary by-elections, diverting funds that could be used for development. Unlike “One Nation, One Election,” the OCOC reform lacks strong political backing. However, if “One Person, One Vote” is a core democratic principle, enforcing “One Candidate, One Constituency” is essential for fairness, transparency, and efficient governance.

Mains Question:

1. Discuss the issue of One Candidate, Multiple Constituencies (OCMC) in India. Analyze its challenges, global practices, and suggest reforms to ensure electoral fairness. (250 WORDS)