The central legal point established in the judgment is that voters with EPIC should produce it for casting votes, and those without EPIC should produce alternative identity documents, as instructed by the Election Commission.

N.K. JAIN. C.J.

This writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition forbearing the respondent, the Election Commission, from insisting upon the production of Elector's Photo identity Cards (EPIC) as a condition precedent for casting their votes in the ensuing elections for the State Legislative Assembly.

2. The petitioner is alleged to be the President of the Thinkers' Forum, an association of intellectuals. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is insisting upon the EPICs as a condition precedent for exercising their franchise. It is further submitted that all the voters, whose names are borne out on the electoral rolls should have been issued with EPICs, but due to lack of infrastructural facilities and inherent technical snags, hardly 65% of the voters could be covered by the EPIC programme. Insisting upon the production of EPIC as a condition precedent for castig vote, would deprive nearly 30 to 35% in every constituency, of their right to vote, and would affect their legitimate democratic right to exercise their franchise. The issuance of photo identity card has not been completed even in a single constituency in the State. If the authorities are not satisfied with the identity of the voters, they could be asked to prove their identity by producing their ration cards, driving licenses, passports etc. It is further submitted that every person, whose name is found in the electoral roll, should be permitted to cast his allowed to vote without insisting on the production of EPIC. Hence, he has prayed for the relief as stated above.

3. This writ petition came up for admission on 21-3-2001, and notice was taken for the respondent, and counter was filed on 29-3-2001 and heard on 30-3-2001.

4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter denying the averments made in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition in the garb of Public Interest Ligitation cannot stall the forthcoming elections. The respondent has also filed a status report of the progress of issue of EPIC and submitted that more than 400 million voters have already been issued with EPICs as against 600 million voters. It is submitted that the writ petition as framed did not make out a case for the issuance of Writ of Prohibition, when there is no question of any inferior tribunal or Court usurping the jurisdiction, involved in the writ petition. Extracting Section 61 of the Representation of the People Act, Rules 35 and 37 (2) (b) of Conduct of Election Rules 1961, and Rule 28 of the Registration of the Electors Rolls, it is submitted that the assumption of the petitioner that the EPIC was mandatorily required to be produced even where it had not even been issued, was totally misconceived. When none of the above provisions has been challenged, the prayer to prevent the respondent from insisting upon the EPICs for the persons who have been issued with photo identity cards is untenable. A direction has been issued by the respondent that those who have been supplied with EPIC alone would be asked to produce the identity cards and those who have not been supplied with EPICs would be asked to produce other documents.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. No doubt, a writ of prohibition is not a writ of course. It is a writ of right and not merely discretionary in character. So, the question remains as to when it can be issued. Writ of Prohibition can be issued when there is a defect of the jurisdiction apparent on the face of the proceedings and it can be issued if the authority exceeded the jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction when there is no jurisdiction.

6. The Election Commission is the authority competent to hold elections in a fair and independent manner, and it has to ensure that all eligible voters cast their votes.

7. The identity cards for voters are designed to avoid impersonation during elections. As stated by the respondent, as early as in the year 1958,