ON behalf of Chandrachud, CJI. and Desai, A.P. Sen and Venkataramiah, JJ.

THE transferred case and the appeals connected with it raise important questions which require a careful and dispassionate consideration. The hearing of these matters was concluded four days ago, on Friday, the 26th. Since the judgment will take some time to prepare, we propose, by this Order, to state our conclusions on some of the points involved in the controversy:

(1) The High court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition and in issuing a rule nisi upon it, since the petition questioned the vires of the laws of election. But, with respect, it was not justified in passing the interim orders dated February 12 and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders by its judgment dated 25/02/1982. Firstly, the High court had no material before it to warrant the passing of those orders. The allegations in the writ petition are of a vague and general nature, on the basis of which no relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no High court in the exercise of its powers und