Applications for LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 are now open. Apply here. The last date for submitting applications is December 21, 2024
The nominations for all phases of the General Election have been submitted. We examine highlights from data on candidates who are participating in the ongoing elections. There are 8,039 candidates contesting for 542 Parliamentary constituency seats.
|
On average, 14.8 candidates are contesting per constituency across the country. Among all the states, Telangana has the highest average number of candidates contesting. This is primarily due to 185 contestants from Nizamabad. Excluding Nizamabad, the state’s average number of contestants would be 16.1. |
 |
|
The Election Commission of India recognises parties as either national or state parties based on their performance in previous elections. Delhi and Haryana have a high number of candidates contesting from parties that have not been recognised as either national or state parties. After Telangana, Tamil Nadu has the highest average of independent candidates contesting in this election. On average, of the candidates in each constituency in Tamil Nadu, two-thirds are contesting as independent candidates. |
 |
|
After Nizamabad, the second highest number of candidate representation is seen in Belgaum, Karnataka. The five constituencies that have the highest candidate representation are from the southern states of Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. |
 |
|
The Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress are contesting 435 and 420 seats respectively. In 373 seats they are in competition with each other. BSP has the third highest number of candidates contesting in this election. |
|
 |
|
|
The seven national parties together fielded 2.69 candidates per constituency. Among the largest five states, West Bengal has the highest representation of candidates from national parties, at 4.6. In that state, candidates from five national parties are contesting. Recognised state parties, together, fielded 1.53 candidates per constituency. Bihar (6 state parties) and Tamil Nadu (8 state parties) see a high representation of candidates from state parties, at 1.2 and 1.3 respectively. Largest states are ones with more than 30 Parliamentary constituency seats: Uttar Pradesh (80), Maharashtra (48), West Bengal (42), Bihar (40), and Tamil Nadu (39). These states together have 249 seats i.e., 46% of Lok Sabha. |
|
 |
|
|
For these five states, the number of seats being contested by national and state parties is shown in the figures below. |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
This analysis is based on the candidate list available on the Election Commission website (eci.gov.in) on May 8, 2019.
In law, the addition or deletion a single punctuation or a single word can have a major impact on the effect of that law. One such example can be seen from the recommended changes in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 by Parliament’s Standing Committee. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2010. The Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, which submitted its report on the Bill yesterday (August 18, 2010). The Committee has made a number of recommendations regarding certain clauses in the Bill (See summary here). One of these may have the effect of diluting the provision currently in the Bill. The main recommendations pertain to:
Clause 17 of the Bill which gives operators a right of recourse against those actually causing damage had been opposed as it was felt that it was not strong enough to hold suppliers liable in case the damage was caused by them. Clause 17 gave a right of recourse under three conditions. The exact clause is reproduced below: The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where — (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; (b) the nuclear incident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage. Under this clause, a right of recourse exists when (a) there is a contract giving such a right, or (b) the supplier acts deliberately or in a grossly negligent manner to cause nuclear damage, or (c) a person causes nuclear damage with the intent to do so. If any of the three cases can be proved by the operator, he has a right of recourse. The Committee has stated that “Clause 17(b) gives escape route to the suppliers of nuclear materials, equipments, services of his employees as their willful act or gross negligence would be difficult to establish in a civil nuclear compensation case.” It recommended that Clause 17(b) should be modified to cover consequences “of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or service.” The Committee also recommended another change in Clause 17. It recommended that clause 17(a) may end with “and”. This provision may dilute the right of recourse available to operators. The modified clause 17 would read as: The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where — (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; and, (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services.; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage. This implies that for Clauses 17(b) or (c) to be applicable, the condition specified in clause 17(a) has to be compulsorily satisfied. Two examples highlight the consequence of the recommended change in Clause 17(a) of the Bill:
The effect of the changes recommended by the committee may thus dilute the provision as it exists in the Bill. The table below compares the position in the Bill and the position as per the Standing Committee’s recommendations:
| Right of recourse - The Bill gives operators a right to recourse under three conditions: (a) if there is a clear contract; (b) if the damage is caused by someone with intent to cause damage; (c) against suppliers if damage is caused by their wilful act or negligence. | In the Bill the three conditions are separated by a semi-colon. The Committee recommended that the semi-colon in clause 17(a) should be replaced by “and”. | This might imply that all three conditions mentioned need to exist for an operator to have recourse. |
| Right to recourse against suppliers exists in cases of “willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier”. (Clause 17) | The Committee felt that the right of recourse against suppliers is vague. It recommended that recourse against the supplier should be strengthened. The supplier is liable if an incident has occurred due to (i) defects, or (ii) sub-standard material, or (iii) gross negligence of the supplier of the material, equipment or services. | The variance with the Convention continues to exist. |
