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? ​

Statement 1 is false now. Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted through the 1996 amendment, limits a candidate to contesting from a maximum of two constituencies in a general election. Before 1996 no such bar existed, which is why the statement sounds plausible. Statement 2 is correct: Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha seats in 1991, the classic example of a multi-seat candidacy that prompted the later restriction.

Statement 3 is false. When a candidate wins from more than one seat, he must vacate all but one, and the cost of the resulting bye-elections is borne by the public exchequer, not by the party. So the correct option is B, 2 only.

Core concept: the limits on multiple candidacies and the cost and procedure of bye-elections under the RP Act, 1951. This connects to electoral reform in Mains GS-2, where the debate covers whether multi-seat contesting should be curbed further and who should bear bye-election costs.

Trap: aspirants treat the 1991 fact as the only thing to check and ignore the 1996 legal change, or assume the party pays for bye-elections because it feels logical. Always check whether a rule has been amended since the event cited.