JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.—These writ petitions have been preferred by way of Public Interest Litigation for the enforcement of fundamental rights, political rights and fundamental duties of the people and electorate - citizens of India under, inter alia, Articles 14 and 19 read with Articles 326 and 51-A and various statutory provisions.

2. The following prayers are made before us in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 1993:

(1) direct respondent 4 to stay the proceedings and functions of the existing Lok Sabha and the privileges of its members until the disposal of this petition;

(2) direct respondent 4 to injunct the Council of Ministers headed by Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao, from aiding and advising the President forthwith;

(3) restrain the voting rights and other privileges of the elected members of Parliament from the State of Punjab until final hearing and disposal of this petition;

(4) issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or an order or injunction debarring respondent 3 from discharging the functions of or officiating as Chief Election Commissioner until the final hearing and disposal of this petition;

(5) issue a writ of mandamus against respondents 2 and 3 directing each of them not to proceed with the holding of Parliamentary general election in the State of Jammu and Kashmir until the final hearing and disposal of this petition;

(6) declare that until the disposal of this petition, elections or general elections to the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assemblies shall be held under the authority, supervision, direction and control of this Honble Court until arrangements are made as prayed in the petition;

(7) restrain respondent 1 from amending the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act or enacting new legislation or taking any major policy decision until the final hearing and disposal of this petition;

(8) direct respondent 2 to afford access to the petitioner herein to enable him to refer the public documents and other papers and reports in the library of respondent 2, to effectively pursue this petition before this Honble Court; and

(9) pass such further and other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner claims to be an active social worker. He further claims that he is a keen observer of the electoral process in the Republic of India. This petition has been preferred in public interest with the sole object of cleansing the existing electoral process and to contest the election. The petitioner has every prospect of winning the election.

4. According to the petitioner, the election process in this country is afflicted with distortions, very often intentionally. When the Parliamentary elections were held in the country in December 1984, the State of Assam which elects 14 Representatives to the Lok Sabha was delinked on the ground that the electoral rolls were not updated. This is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The States of Assam and Punjab have become the worst victims of terrorist activities. During the entire term of the Ninth Lok Sabha, Assam did not have its representation. Tenth Lok Sabha was constituted including the Representatives from Assam and Punjab States, however, Jammu & Kashmir State had been deleted.

5. Thus, according to him, all the consequential proceedings, leading to the prayers, are illegal. The petitioner appearing in person reiterates the same.

6. To every democracy, election is essential. No doubt, such elections will have to be free and fair. Fazl Ali, J. in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency {1952 SCR 218, 229} (as quoted in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner {(1978) 1 SCC 405, 418 } explained thus:

"The concept of democracy as visualised by the Constitution presupposes the representation of the people in Parliament and State Legislatures by the method of election. And, before an election machinery can be brought into operation, there are three requisites which re