The judgment emphasizes that in exceptional and rare circumstances, the Court may grant interim relief that effectively amounts to granting the final relief, especially when the case demonstrates a very strong prima facie case, significant irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience that tilts heavily in favor of the applicant (!) (!) .

It highlights that such relief is warranted only when withholding it would cause substantial injustice or do violence to the principles of justice, and where the injury is immediate and pressing (!) . The Court also considers the conduct of the parties and the presence of compelling circumstances that justify bypassing the usual requirement of maintaining the status quo or waiting for the final adjudication (!) .

In the context of the case discussed, the Court found that the petitioner had established a foolproof case for interim relief because the election process was almost complete, there was only one valid nomination, and no contest remained, making the meeting only a formality for declaring the result (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by granting the interim relief, effectively allowing the final relief sought, on the basis that the circumstances justified such extraordinary intervention. This approach underscores that in exceptional cases, interim relief can amount to final relief when the facts and circumstances demonstrate that delaying the relief would cause significant injustice (!) (!) .