1. We dismissed this petition brought under Art.226 of the Constitution on the 20th of this month. We did not then give our reasons, but promised to give them later. That we now proceed to do.

2. Speaking for myself, I should think that this petition does not lie in view of Art.329 of the Constitution. That article which is headed. "Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters" says:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Art.327 or Art.328, shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature."

3. It seems to me and I would have said this with greater assurance but for that it has not been so put at the bar, largely, I apprehend, because it has not been so put before, and that my learned brethren seem to think that the matter is not so simple as that that all that one need ask is: Is the bar in clause (b) of Art.329 only against interference with an election that has been, or is being held, or, does it extend to interference with an election that is yet to be held? (I am thinking for the moment in terms of things as they stood when this petition was brought the supervening complication, complication, that is, from the point of view of the petitioner, of the issue of a notification under S.15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on the 17th August, while we were hearing the petition, seems to put the matter beyond all manner of doubt). And, having regard to the wording of the article as to its purpose, I should think that the short answer is that it does so extend.

4. An election within the meaning of the article is not confined to the final result, the announcement of the successful candidate as duly elected, but embraces the entire process, beginning at least with the issue of the notification under S.15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which I shall, for brevity, call the writ) and culminating in that result see N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency AIR. 1952 Supreme Court 64. It is of paramount importance that an election, whether in progress or yet to be held, should not be held up, and, that is why, as indicated by its heading, the article bars interference by the courts in electoral matters, clause (b) thereof, in particular, saying that, "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature". And this notwithstanding Art.226 or anything else in the Constitution. Now, you might question an election after it is completed and that what is usually done. But Art.329 says that you may not do so except by way of an election petition. You might question it while it is in progress that is what the petitioner is now doing and that was what was unsuccessfully attempted in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer. Namakkal Constituency AIR. 1952 Supreme Court 64. That too is prohibited. You might, I think, equally question the validity of an election that is going to be held, regarding which no writ has yet issued. (If it is possible to question an election before it is over, I suppose, it must be possible to question a proposed election before it has begun. If, for example, you question the propriety of a proposed appointment, I suppose there would be nothing wrong in saying that you are calling the appointment in question). That, we shall see, is precisely what the petitioner did when he brought the petition, and he did that principally on the ground that the electoral rolls were defect