Elections and the RPA — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on elections and the Representation of the People Acts with full explanations — election petitions, NOTA, electoral bonds and by-elections.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election petition calling in question the election of a Member of Parliament is to be presented before which of the following?
Solution
Section 80A vests jurisdiction in the High Court. The petition must be filed within 45 days (Section 81), with appeal to the Supreme Court (Section 116A). The Election Commission cannot set aside a declared result, and Article 329(b) bars other modes of challenge.
Answer: B
How many of the following statements are correct?
- A candidate cannot contest a general election from more than two constituencies.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951 prohibits the publication of exit poll results during a specified period.
- A person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment cannot vote.
- The Election Commission can remove or reduce the period of certain disqualifications under the Act.
Solution
All four are correct — Section 33(7); Section 126A; Section 62(5) (preventive detainees excepted); and Section 11 (except disqualification under Section 8A, which is decided by the President).
Answer: D
The “None of the Above” (NOTA) option on electronic voting machines was introduced following which judgment of the Supreme Court?
Solution
In PUCL v. Union of India (September 2013), the Court held that a negative vote is part of the voter’s freedom of expression. Lily Thomas struck down Section 8(4); ADR (2002) required disclosure of candidates’ antecedents; Kuldip Nayar upheld the open ballot for Rajya Sabha elections.
Answer: A
With reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Electoral Bond Scheme in February 2024, consider the following statements:
- The Court held that the scheme violated the voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
- The Court struck down the amendment that had removed the cap on corporate political donations under the Companies Act, 2013.
- The judgment was delivered by a 3:2 majority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is wrong — the five-judge bench was unanimous in result (two concurring opinions). The Court also struck down the exemption from reporting bond donations under Section 29C of RPA 1951.
Answer: C
With reference to by-elections under Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, consider the following statements:
- A by-election to fill a vacancy must ordinarily be held within six months of the vacancy.
- A by-election must be held even if the remainder of the member’s term is less than one year.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong — no by-election is needed if the remainder of the term is less than one year, or if the Election Commission, in consultation with the Union Government, certifies that holding it within six months is difficult.
Answer: A
Mains
Examine the role played by the Supreme Court in strengthening the electoral process in India.
Solution
Introduction: Article 329 limits courts’ role during elections, but the Supreme Court has used Article 19(1)(a), Article 14 and the basic-structure doctrine to shape electoral law between elections.
Body:
- Informed voter: Union of India v. ADR (2002) and PUCL (2003) — disclosure of criminal record, assets, education.
- Clean candidates: Lily Thomas (2013) — immediate disqualification on conviction; Public Interest Foundation (2018) — publicity of criminal antecedents.
- Voter choice and trust: PUCL (2013) — NOTA; Subramanian Swamy (2013) — VVPAT.
- Campaign ethics: Abhiram Singh (2017) — no appeals on religion, caste or language.
- Money in politics: ADR (2024) — Electoral Bond Scheme struck down.
- Limits: courts cannot legislate; many reforms (state funding, party regulation) still need Parliament.
Conclusion: The Court has acted as a catalyst of electoral reform through the voter’s right to know, but durable reform needs legislative follow-through.