SHANTI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HELD - In Inderjit Barua's case (supra), the revision of electoral rolls was dispensed with by the Election Commission. That order was not challenged and elections were held on the basis of such unrevised electoral roll for the Assam Legislative Assembly on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. Interpreting the provisions of Art. 329 (b) and 226 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the validity of the election could not be challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the electoral rolls were invalid because the bar under Article 329 operates and that the plea that the elections were challenged as a whole and not individually was immaterial. The Apex Court further held that the court can also not issue any direction to the Election Commission not to hold any election to the Parliament from Assam unless the revision of the electoral roll was complete.

(2.) IN A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman vs. Union of INdia (6), the Apex Court has emphasized that where election is imminent, the High Court must be very cautious and slow to interfere under and to pass orders or directions postponing the election. It was also held that the allegations of irregularities in the electoral rolls, held on facts were vague and general in nature and in absence of material before it, the High Court was not justified in passing orders for postponement of the election. It was further observed that no High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders interim or otherwise, which has the tendency of effect of postponement in the election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked and that the imminence of the electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction.