Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- At the conclusion of the hearing, in view of the urgency of the matter as also the importance of the issues involved, we made an order on September, 28,1984 (reported in AIR 1984 SC 1911), setting out briefly our conclusions and had indicated that detailed reasons would be given in the judgment to be delivered later.

2. On the 12th January, 1983, election to all the 126 seats of the Assam Legislative Assembly was notified to be held in February, 1983. Very disturbed conditions had been prevailing in Assam for a few years prior to this period and one of the issues leading to the agitation was the electoral rolls of 1979 prepared under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (1950 Act for short). When general election was notified, a set of writ petitions were filed in the Gauhati High Court being Civil Rules 87 and 228-246 of 1983. The first application asked for a mandamus to the Election Commission and the State Government then under Presidents rule not to hold elections on the basis of the defective electoral rolls and to defer holding of elections on account of the prevailing disturbed situation in the State. In the second group of writ petitions the Court was asked to issue a mandamus for preparation of fresh electoral rolls according to law before election could be held and to restrain the Commission and the State Government from holding elections on the basis of defective and void electoral rolls. The High Court did not grant interim order of stay of election though the writ petitions were entertained. Consequently, elections were held to the State Legislature and by Notification of February, 27, 1983, the results of the election were duly notified. A number of writ petitions were then filed in the Gauhati High Court more or less making similar allegations and substantially challenging the electoral rolls of 1979 and questioning the validity of all the elections to the Legislative Assembly and praying for dissolution of the House. In some of these applications relief of quo warranto was also asked for against named returned candidates. These writ petitions were numbered as Civil Rules 524,691-693,695-699, 706-707, 694 and 595(?) of 1983 and were in due course transferred to this Court at the instance of the Election Commission for disposal. They have, therefore, been assigned new numbers as Transferred Cases. We have thus two sets of cases, transferred from the Gauhati High Court - the first set challenging the electoral rolls of 1979 and the Notification for holding of the elections and asking for staying of the elections and the second set challenging the elections after they were held and notified on the ground that the holding of elections on the basis of the void electoral rolls of 1979 was contrary to law and vitiated the elections.

3. Our order of September, 28, 1984, (reported in AIR 1984 SC 1911), not only indicated the conclusions but also provided brief reasons for the same. We, therefore, propose to refer to the relevant portions thereof on each issue arising for consideration. Dealing with the challenge to the validity of elections to Assam Legislative Assembly, we had said :

"The principal ground on which the validity, of the elections has been challenged is that the electoral rolls were not revised before the elections in contravention of the provisions of S. 21, sub-sec. (2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the elections were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. Now it is undoubtedly true that the electoral rolls were not revised before the impugned elections were held but the Election Commission dispensed with the revision of the electoral. rolls by an order dated January, 7, 1983, made under the opening part of S. 21, sub-sec. (2) and this order has not been challenged in any of the writ petitions. Hence the impugned elections cannot be challenged on the ground that they were without revision of the electoral rolls. The petitioners also att