Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) At the conclusion of the hearing, in view of the urgency of the matter as also the importance of the issues involved, we made an order on September, 28,1984 , setting out briefly our conclusions and had indicated that detailed reasons would be given in the judgment to be delivered later.
(2.) On the 12th January, 1983, election to all the 126 seats of the Assam Legislative Assembly was notified to be held in February, 1983. Very disturbed conditions had been prevailing in Assam for a few years prior to this period and one of the issues leading to the agitation was the electoral rolls of 1979 prepared under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 ('1950 Act' for short). When general election was notified, a set of writ petitions were filed in the Gauhati High Court being Civil Rules 87 and 228-246 of 1983. The first application asked for a mandamus to the Election Commission and the State Government then under President's rule not to hold elections on the basis of the defective electoral rolls and to defer holding of elections on account of the prevailing disturbed situation in the State. In the second group of writ petitions the Court was asked to issue a mandamus for preparation of fresh electoral rolls according to law before election could be held and to restrain the Commission and the State Government from holding elections on the basis of defective and void electoral rolls. The High Court did not grant interim order of stay of election though the writ petitions were entertained. Consequently, elections were held to the State Legislature and by Notification of February, 27, 1983, the results of the election were duly notified. A number of writ petitions were then filed in the Gauhati High Court more or less making similar allegations and substantially challenging the electoral rolls of 1979 and questioning the validity of all the elections to the Legislative Assembly and praying for dissolution of the House. In some of these applications relief of quo warranto was also asked for against named returned candidates. These writ petitions were numbered as Civil Rules 524,691-693,695-699, 706-707, 694 and 595( ) of 1983 and were in due course transferred to this Court at the instance of the Election Commission for disposal. They have, therefore, been assigned new numbers as Transferred Cases. We have thus two sets of cases, transferred from the Gauhati High Court - the first set challenging the electoral rolls of 1979 and the Notification for holding of the elections and asking for staying of the elections and the second set challenging the elections after they were held and notified on the ground that the holding of elections on the basis of the void electoral rolls of 1979 was contrary to law and vitiated the elections.
(3.) Our order of September, 28, 1984, , not only indicated the conclusions but also provided brief reasons for the same. We, therefore, propose to refer to the relevant portions thereof on each issue arising for consideration. Dealing with the challenge to the validity of elections to Assam Legislative Assembly, we had said: "The principal ground on which the validity, of the elections has been challenged is that' the electoral rolls were not revised before the elections in contravention of the provisions of S. 21, sub-sec. (2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the elections were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. Now it is undoubtedly true that the electoral rolls were not revised before the impugned elections were held but the Election Commission dispensed with the revision of the electoral. rolls by an order dated January, 7, 1983, made under the opening part of S. 21, sub-sec. (2) and this order has not been challenged in any of the writ petitions. Hence the impugned elections cannot be challenged on the ground that they were without revision of the electoral rolls. The petitioners also attacked the validity of the electoral rolls of 1979 on the ground that the Election Commission had by the Press Note dated September, 18, 1979, erroneously directed the electoral authorities in charge of revision of the electoral rolls not to delete the names of any persons from the electoral rolls on the ground of lack of qualification of citizenship since the question of citizenship was not one which could be decided by the electoral authorities and the electoral rolls of 1979 were, therefore, invalid and the impugned elections held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979 were void. We do not think there is any substance in this contention. In the first place, Art. 329(b) of the Constitution bars any challenge to the impugned elections by a writ petition under Art. 226 as also on the ground that the electoral rolls on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid. The petitioners sought to escape from the ban of Art. 329(b) by contending that they are challenging the impugned elections as a whole and not any individual election and that the ban of Art. 329(b), therefore, does not stand in the way of the writ petitions filed by them challenging the impugned elections. But we do not think this escape route is open to the petitioners. There is in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, no concept of elections as a whole. What that Act contemplates is election from each constituency and it is that election which is liable to be challenged by filing an election petition. It may be that there is a common ground which may vitiate the elections from all the constituencies, but even so it is the election from each constituency which has to be challenged though the ground of challenge may be identical. Even Where in form the challenge is to the elections as a whole, in effect and substance what is challenged is election from each constituency, and Art. 329(b) must, therefore, be held to be attracted. We are of the view that once the final electoral rolls are published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral rolls, it is not open to anyone to challenge the election from any constituency or constituencies on the ground that the electoral rolls were defective. That is not a ground available for challenging an election under S. 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The finality of the electoral rolls cannot be assailed in proceeding challenging the validity of an election held on the basis of such electoral roll vide Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, (1970) 1 SCR 845. Art. 329(b), in our opinion, clearly bars any writ petition challenging the impugned election on the ground that the electoral rolls of 1979 on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid." Article 329(b) of the Constitution provides: "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:- (a) ********** (b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature or 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.";