ORDER

1. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu in support of IA No. 7 and Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission. Learned Solicitor General appeared for the Government of India.

2. On 2-8-1993, the Election Commission of India, under certain extraordinary circumstances, felt compelled in view of the difficulties encountered and experienced by it in the matter of securing appropriate deployment of security and paramilitary forces for the proper and efficient conduct of the elections, to declare that the by elections in the country to the various constituencies shall stand postponed till 18-12-1993. The further consequential orders made by the Election Commission of India pursuant to its general order of 2-8-1993 had the effect of postponing the elections in two constituencies at Tamil Nadu as well.

3. The two constituencies in the State of Tamil Nadu are - the "34 Ranipet Assembly Constituency" and "22 Palani Parliamentary Constituency". The State of Tamil Nadu was aggrieved by this postponement. The orders of the Election Commission were challenged by the State of Tamil Nadu in Writ Petitions Nos. 14690-92 of 1993 filed before the High Court. The High Court by its interlocutory orders stayed the operation of the order of the Election Commission dated 2-8-1993. At that stage the Election Commission brought up special leave petitions and the transfer petitions against the proceedings before the High Court.

4. The controversy centers arc and the proclaimed dissatisfaction of the Election Commission as to the responses of the Central Government to its orders and directions for deployment of adequate paramilitary and security requirements in the constituencies going to the polls. One fact of this controversy is whether the Election Commission is entitled to issue such directions to the Government. The question assumes significance from the constitutional position of the plenitude of the powers of the Election Commission; whether they include the power to assess, prescribe and impose security standards in accordance with its own exclusive perception of the law and order situation. What should happen if the Central Government is unable to accept the Commissions perception of the law and order situation? Or the Commissions assessment of the requisites of security arrangements? Who shall resolve the dispute if the Central Government expresses its own constraints as to the availability or affordability of the Commissions demands? The stand of the Commission seems to suggest that under the constitutional dispensation, it alone is the exclusive constitutional authority in this behalf. These then, indeed, are some of the questions which arise in the substantive independent Writ Petition No. 616 of 1993 brought up by the Election Commission of India before this Court.

5. The Election Commission of India is a high constitutional authority charged with the function and the duty of ensuring free and fair elections and of the purity of the electoral process. It has all the incidental and ancillary powers to effectuate the constitutional objective and purpose. The plenitude of the Commissions powers corresponds to the high constitutional functions it has to discharge. In an exercise of the magnitude involved in ensuring free and fair elections in the vastness of our country, there are bound to be differences of perception as to the law and order situation in any particular constituency at any given time and as to the remedial requirements. Then again, there may be intrinsic limitations on the resources of the Central Government to meet in full the demands of the Election Commission. There may again be honest differences of opinion in the assessment of the magnitude of the security machinery. There must, in the very nature of the complexities and imponderables inherent in such situations, be a harmonious functioning of the Election Commission and the Governments, both State