J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                [201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 506


A              J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY
                                  v.
               THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                 (Civil Appeal No. 9599 of 2010)
                         NOVEMBER 09, 2010
B
      [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        Election laws:

c      Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act,
  1957 - s. 3 - Constitution of delimitation Commission -
  Postponement of delimitation of territorial constituencies of the
  State pertaining to the Legislative Assembly until publishing
  of the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year
0 2026 - Sustainability of - Held: Right to cast vote is a
  valuable right but to demand any uniform value of one's voting
  right through the process of delimitation, disregarding the
  statutory and constitutional dispensation based on historical
  reasons is not a justiciable right - There is an express
E constitutional bar to any challenge being made to delimitation
  law - Amendment to the Constitution of J & K is not violative
  of the basic structure of the Constitution - Constitution of
  Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 - ss. 47(3) and 142- Constitution
  of India, 1950 - Articles 327 and 329A.
F      Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation
  of the People Act, 1957 was amended. It sought to defer
  the delimitation exercise until publishing of the relevant
  figures for the first census taken after the year 2026. A
  corresponding amendment was also made in sub-
G section 3 of Section 47 of the Constitution of Jammu and
  Kashmir, 1957. The appellants challenged the
  postponement of the delimitation of the constituencies till
  2026 as a result of the said amendment. The High Court
  held that delimitation for the purpose of dividing the State
H                                506
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                507
                   INDIA AND ORS.
into single member territorial constituency may be a             A
Basic Feature of democracy contemplated in the
Constitution, however, the re-adjustment of the extent
and boundaries of such territorial constituency upon
completion of each census was neither a mandate of the
Constitution, nor the essence of democracy as per the            B
Basic Structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 A right to cast vote is a valuable right but
to demand any uniform value of one's voting right                c
through the process of delimitation, disregarding the
statutory and constitutional dispensation based on
historical reasons is not a justiciable right. [Para 25] [518-
A-B]
    1.2 Article 327 of the Constitution of India, 1950,          D
empowers Parliament to make a law relating to
delimitation of constituencies. The mandate of Article
329A is that any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies would not be called in question in any            E
court. Identical provisions have been made in Section
142 of the Constitution of J & K. Therefore, there is an
express constitutional bar to any challenge being made
to the delimitation law which is made under
Constitutional provisions. The substantial challenge of          F
the appellant in the said proceeding is not to be
entertained by any court, including this Court. [Para 26
& 27] [519-B-G]
     1.3 The submission that the amendment to Section
47(3) of the Constitution of J & K violates the basic            G
structure of the Constitution, is not based on a sound
principle and is rejected. There must be a clear perception
of what the Basic Structure is. It is hazardous to define
what is the Basic Structure of the Constitution as what
is basic does not remain static for all time to come. 'Free      H
    508     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   and fair election' is one of the basic features. Ensuring
    uniformity in the value of votes is not a constitutionally
    mandated imperative of free and fair election under the
    constitutional dispensation. [Paras 27, 29, 30, 31) [518-G;
    519-D; 520-G-H; 521-A]
B       R. C. Poudyal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
    (1994) Supp 1 SCC 324 - followed.
         His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v.
    State of Kera/a and Anr. (1973) 4 sec 225 - referred to.
c       Charles W. Baker vs. Joe C. Carr 369 US 186; 8. A.
    Reynolds etc. vs. M. 0. Sims - 377 US 533 - referred to.
         Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu 14th Edn -
    referred to.
D                         Case Law Reference:
          369 us 186                Referred to      Para 15
          377 us 533                Referred to      Para 18
E         (1994) Supp 1 SCC 324 Followed             Para 25, 31
          (1973) 4 SCC 225          Referred to      Para 28
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    9599 of 2010.
F       From the Judgment & Order dated 02.06.2009 of the High
    Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu in Writ Petition (PIL) 24 of
    2007.
          Prof. Bhim Singh, Satish Vig for the Appellant.
G         M.I. Qadri, AG, Gaurav Pachanda, AAG, Meenakshi Arora
    for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                    509
   INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     2. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, a                 A
recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir
has filed this appeal before this Court seeking to impugn the
judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, dated 2nd of June
2009. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions which
raised identical questions. They were heard together and             B
disposed of by the impugned judgment.

     3. The main thrust of the challenge before the High Court,
as well as before this Court is on the following question: whether
or not the action of the government in postponing the                C
delimitation of territorial constituencies of the State pertaining
to the Legislative Assembly until the relevant figures published
after the first census taken after 2026 is legally sustainable?

    4. In fact the appellant is aggrieved by an amendment to
the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act               D
1957, especially the amendment in Section 3 thereof. This
amendment has been brought about in 2002. Section 3 of the
Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act 1957
(hereinafter the said Act), as amended from time to time, is set
out below:-                                                          E

     "3. Constitution of Delimitation Commission

    (1) {As soon as may be after the completion of each
    census} the Government shall constitute a Commission to
    be called the Delimitation Commission which shall consist        F
    of three member as follows:

    (a) two members, each of whom shall be a person {who
    is or has} been a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High
    Court in India; and                                              G

    (b) a Deputy Election Commissioner nominated by the
    Chief Election Commissioner:

    {Provided that until the relevant figures for the first census
                                                                     H
    510     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not
          be necessary to constitute a Commission to determine the
          delimitation of Assembly Constituencies in the State under
          this sub-section}

          (2) The Governor shall nominate one of the members
B
          appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) to be the
          Chairman of the Delimitation Commission.

          (3) The Delimitation Commission shall determine the
          delimitation of Assembly Constituencies in the State within
c         such period as may be specified by the Governor."

       5. There has been a corresponding amendment also in the
  sub-section 3 of Section 47 of the Constitution of Jammu and
  Kashmir, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as Constitution of'J &
D K). Section 47 (3) as amended is set out below:-

          "47(3) Upon the completion of each census, the number,
          extent and boundaries of the territorial constituencies shall
          be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as the
          Legislature may by law determine:
E
                  Provided that such readjustment shall not effect
          representation in the Legislative Assembly until the
          dissolution of the then existing Assembly {;Provided that
          until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the
F         year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary
          to readjust the total number ofseats in the Legislative
          Assembly of the State and the division of the State into
          territorial constituencies under this sub-section}."

      6. The main grievance of the appellant seems to be that
G in view of the postponing of the delimitation of the
  constituencies as a result of the aforesaid amendments, the
  growing imbalance in the matter of composition of various
  constituencies would continue despite the census operation
  being carried out. It has been argued before this Court that
H
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                    511 .
   INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
normally the delimitation exercise is consequent upon a census A,
operation. As a result of the census operation the composition
of the population is reflected. That gives rise to an exercise in
delimitation for a proper representation of rights of the people
in a democratic polity. The further contention is that without
these demographical changes being properly reflected in the B'
composition of constituencies by way of a delimitation exercise,
the essence of democracy will be defeated in the election, The
appellant, therefore, urge that without an exercise in delimitation
immediately upon the completion of census operation, the .
election in the State of Jammu and Kashmir will not reflect the Ci
true voice of democracy and the popular view would, therefore,
be gagged and would not find a proper representation.

     7. In this case we are not concerned much with any factual
controversy. In this case the Court has been called upon to
decide the correctness or otherwise of contention of the              D
appellant in the context of the relevant laws and the
constitutional provisions.

    8. Admittedly, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
census operation was completed in 2001, but the delimitation          E
was done in 1995.

     9. At present in the State of Jammu a11d Kashmir there are
87 constituencies. Out of that 46 are in Kashmir Valley, 37 in
Jammu and 4 are in Ladakh region. Under Section 47(1) of the
Constitution of J & K, it is provided that the Legislative            F
Assembly shall consist of 111 members .chosen by direct
                                                                          I
election from territorial constituencies of the State. Under
proviso to Section 47 of the Constitution of J & K, it is provided
that if the Governor is of the opinion that women are not
adequately represented in the assembly, he_ may nominate not          G
more than two women members. However, it is provided in
Section 48 of the Constitution that until the area of the State
which is under the occupation of Pakistan ceases to be so
occupied and the people residing in that area elect their
    512     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   representatives, those 24 seats in the Legislative Assembly
    shall remain vacant for Pakistan occupied Kashmir and will not
    be taken into account for counting the total membership of the
    assembly. The said area would be excluded in delimiting the
    territorial constituencies of the state.
B
       10. The learned Counsel, Professor Bhim Singh,
  appearing for the appellant submits that of the 37
  constituencies in Jammu, some are reserved for Scheduled
  Castes and Scheduled Tribes whereas of the 46 constituencies
C in Kashmir valley, not a single one is reserved for Scheduled
  Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But if the census operation is
  properly perused, it becomes clear that some of the
  constituencies in the Kashmir valley should also have been
  reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, had a
  delimitation exercise been conducted on the basis of census
D operation. The impugned amendment is, therefore, unfair,
  undemocratic and unconstitutional as it seeks to defer the
  delimitation exercise only upon the declaration of census
  results after 2026.

E        11. In the writ petition filed before the High Court no
    substantial challenge has been made to the amendment of the
    Constitution of the J & K. In the writ petition in paragraph 16,
    very vaguely this challenge has been made and which is set
    out below:
F
          "16. If no Delimitation Commission is constituted till 2026,
          it would mean that there will be no rotation of the Assembly
          constituencies till the census in 2031. It would mean that
          reserved Assembly constituencies shall not be rotated from
          1996 to 2031 i.e. for 35 years reserved seats shall not be
G
          changed. This is an unparallel (sic) instance of the
          massacre of the rule of law, the principles of the natural
          justice and of course, denial of justice and equity
          guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution
          of India. This Act violates the letter of spirit of Section 47
H
  J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF 513
    INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     among other provisions as well as that of the J & K             A
     Representation of the People Act."

     12. In the prayers made in that Writ Petition, prayers Band
C have become infructuous. Prayer D is aimed at Section 47
of the Constitution of J & K but we do not find adequate             8
pleading challenging the amendment to Section 47 of the
Constitution of J & K.

      13. Professor Shim Singh submitted that he was arguing
this case on behalf of about 10, 143, 700 people (as per 2001
Census) of Jammu and Kashmir. He stated that on 27th                 C
October 1947, Jammu and Kashmir became a part of India and
on 26th January 1957, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir
was adopted. He also urged that in view of Article 370 of the
Constitution of India, autonomy has been granted to the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned counsel repeatedly harped          D
on the question that not holding of a delimitation exercise
immediately after the completion of the census as a result of
the aforesaid amendment is unconstitutional. In fact, the learned
counsel argued that the said amendment to the Constitution of
J & K was itself violative of the Basic Structure of the             E
Constitution of India as applicable to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, as well as the Constitution of J & K.

      14. Dealing with the aforesaid arguments of the appellant
(petitioner before the High Court), the Division Bench of the
High Court, inter alia, held that delimitation for the purpose of    F
dividing the State into single member territorial constituency
maybe a Basic Feature of democracy contemplated in the
Constitution. However, High Court opined that the readjustment
of the extent and boundaries of such territorial constituency upon
completion of each census was neither a mandate of the               G
Constitution, nor the essence of democracy as per the Basic
Structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

    15. The High Court dealt with the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States of America in the case of Charles         H
    514    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   W. Baker vs. Joe C. Carr reported in 369 US 186. In this
    decision, the plaintiffs who were entitled to vote to elect
    members of Tennessee legislature filed a class action for a
    declaration that Tennessee Apportionment Act of 1901 was
    unconstitutional as it violated the 14th Amendment of the
s   Constitution of the United States. It was alleged that the
    impugned act sought to bring about a gross disproportion of
    representation to the members of the public in respect of their
    voting right. Thus, the Act placed the plaintiffs in a position of
    constitutionally unjustifiable equality. Initially the District Court,
c   where the case was filed, held that it lacked jurisdiction to
    decide the issue. Thereupon, on appeal the Supreme Court
    reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District
    Court holding, inter alia, that the District Court has the
    jurisdiction in the matter and also held that the plaintiffs had the
    locus to challenge the Tennessee Apportionment act.
0
       16. However, Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan
  dissented and held that the nature of controversy is unfit for
  federal judicial action, and that the existing apportionment was
  not so unreasonable so as to offend the equal protection clause.
E The majority opinion in that case was, however, based on the
  principle of approximate equality in the voice of every voter.

       17. In the judgment impugned herein, the High Court held
  that our Constitution never contemplated equality in the value
F of vote in view of the several other provisions of the
  Constitution. Supporting the judgment, the learned Solicitor
  General of India drew the attention of this Court to the various
  provisions of the Constitution of India namely, Articles 81, 82
  and 170. The learned Solicitor General also referred to a
G decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in R. C.
  Poudya/ and others vs. Union of India and others, (1994)
  Supp 1 SCC 324, wherein this Court examined Article 170 (2)
  while dealing with the reservation of 12 seats for Sikkimese of
  Bhutia-Lepcha origin in the State of Sikkim. One of the main
  questions which were raised in that case is as follows:
H
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                       515
   INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
    "Whether Section 7(1-A) and Section 25-A of the                      A
    Representation of the People Act, 1950 [as inserted by
    Election Laws (Extension to Sikkim) Act, 1976 and
    Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1980
    respectively] and section 5-A (2) of the Representation of
    the People Act, 1951 [as inserted by the Representation              B
    of the People (Amendment) Act, 1980] providing for
    reservation of 12 seats, out of 32 seats in the Sikkim
    Legislative Assembly in favour of Bhutias-Lepchas, are
    unconstitutional as violative of the basic features of
    democracy and republicanism under the Indian                         c
    Constitution?" (Para 85, page 373 of the report)

     18. While deciding the said issue, this Court took into
consideration the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Charles W Baker [supra], and B. A. Reynolds etc.
vs. M. 0. Sims - 377 US 533.                                             D

     19. This Court relied on the opinion of Chief Justice Earl
Warren in B.A. Reynolds (supra). At page 536 of the report
the learned Chief Justice held as follows:-
                                                                         E
    "...... We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange
    legislative districts so that each one has an identical
    number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical
    exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional
    requirement."
                                                                         F
     20. The learned Chief Justice also relied on historical
factors in support of his opinion and held:-

    "History indicates, however, that many States have
    deviated, to a greater or lesser degree, from the equal-             G
    population principle in the apportionment of seats in at
    least one house of their legislatures. So long as the
    divergences from a strict population standard are based
    on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of
                                                                         H
    516     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-
          population principle are constitutionally permissible with
          respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of
          the two houses of a bicameral state legislature." (page 537
          of the report)
B
         21. After relying on the aforesaid judgments and rioticing
    the position in Australian Constitution the majority opinion of this
    Court was rendered by Justice Venkatachaliah (as His Lordship
    then was). By a remarkably erudite formulation of principles, His
    Lordship held:-
C
          "It is true that the right to vote is central to the right of
          participation in the democratic process. However, there is
          less consensus amongst theorists on tlie propriety of
          judicial activism in the voting area. In India, the Delimitation
D          Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India,
          are immune from the judicial test of their validity and the
          process of allotment of seats and constituencies is not
          liable to be called in question in any court by virtue of
          Article 329 (a) of the Constitution." (Para 119, page 383
E         of the report)

       22. It was repeatedly held in Poudyal (supra) that "a
  perfectly arithmetical equality of value of votes is not a
  constitutionally mandated imperative of democracy and,
  secondly, that even if the impugned provisions make a
F departure from tolerance limits and the constitutionally
  permissible latitudes, the discriminations arising are justifiable
  on the basis of the historical considerations peculiar to and
  characteristic of the evolution of Sikkim's political institutions."

G         23. In this case the same is true of the evolution of the
    political institutions of Jammu and Kashmir. This position has
    been again reiterated in para 126 in Poudyal's case in the
    following words:

          "An examination of the constitutional scheme would
H
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                   517
   INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
    indicate that the concept of 'one person one vote' is in its    A
    very nature considerably tolerant of imbalances and
    departures from a very strict application and enforcement.
    The provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality
    of representation is necessarily a broad, general and
    logical principle but not intended to be expressed with         B
    arithmetical precision ... The principle of mathematical
    proportionality of representation is not a declared basic
    requirement in each and every part of the territory of India.
    Accommodations and adjustments, having regard to the
    political maturity, awareness and degree of political           c
    development in different parts of India, might supply the
    justification for even non-elected Assemblies wholly or in
    part, in certain parts of the country. The differing degrees
    of political development and maturity of various parts of the
    country, may not justify standards based on mathematical
                                                                    0
    accuracy." (Page 385 of the report)

    24. Even Justice S.C. Agrawal, who partly dissented with
the majority, agreed with the majority opinion on this aspect of
the matter by holding as under:-
                                                                    E
    'The principle of one man one vote envisages that there
    should be parity in the value of votes of electors. Such a
    parity though ideal for 1a representative democracy is
    difficult to achieve. There is some departure in every
    system following this democratic path. In the matter of         F
    delimitation of constituencies, it often happens that the
    population of one constituency differs from that of the other
    constituency and as a result although both the
    constituencies elect one member, the value of the vote of
    the elector in the constituency having lesser population is     G
    more than the value of the vote of the elector of the
    constituency having a larger population .. .". (para 182,
    page 402 of the report)

    25. On a perusal of the aforesaid principles as laid down
                                                                    H
    518    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A by this Court in the Constitution Bench judgment, we are of the
  opinion that a right to caste vote is a valuable right but to
  demand eny uniform value of one's voting right through the
  process of delimitation, disregarding the statutory and
  constitutional dispensation based on historical reasons is not
B a justiciable right.

       26. In the context of this question we must keep in mind
  the constitutional scheme in Part XV relating to election. Article
  327 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make a
C law relating to delimitation of constituencies. The mandate of
  Article 329A is that any law relating to the delimitation of
  constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies
  shall not be called in question in any Court. Identical provisions
  have been made in Section 142 of the Constitution of J & K.
  Section 142(a) is set out below:-
D
       "142. Bar to interference by courts in electoral
       matters. - Notwithstanding anything in this constitution-

          (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
          territorial constituencies for the purpose of electing
E
          members of the Legislative Assembly or the .allotment of
          seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be
          made under section 141, shall not be called in question in
          any court;"

F      27. It is, therefore, clear that there is an express
  constitutional bar to any challenge being made to the
  delimitation law which is made under Constitutional provisions.
  Therefore, the substantial challenge of the appellant in this
  proceeding is not to be entertained by any Court, including this
G Court. The other aspect of the question is that the amendment
  to Section 47(3) of the Constitution of J & K violates Basic
  Structure of the Constitution. This challenge is also not based
  on a sound principle.

          28. The judgment of this Court in His Holiness
H
 J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                     519
   INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kera/a and             A
another, (1973) 4 SCC 225, which introduced the concept of
Basic Structure in our constitutional jurisprudence is the
spontaneous response of an activist Court after working with
our Constitution for about 25 years. This Court felt that in the
absence of such a stance by the constitutional Court there are        B
clear tendencies that the tumultuous tides of democratic
majoritarianism of our country may engulf the constitutional
values of our nascent democracy. The judgment in
Kesavananda Bharti (supra) is possibly an "auxiliary precaution
against a possible tidal wave in the vast ocean of Indian             c
democracy".

      29. But we must have a clear perception of what the Basic
Structure is. It is hazardous to define what is the Basic Structure
of the Constitution as what is basic does not remain static for
all time to come. However, the basic features have been culled        D
out from various pronouncements of this Court. In the 14th
Edition of Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, these
features have been noted as under:-

      "(a)   Supremacy of the Constitution.                           E
      (a)    Rule of law.

      (b)    The principle of Separation of Powers.

      (c)    The principles behind fundamental rights.                F
      (d)    The objectives specified in the Preamble to the
             Constitution.

      (e}    Judicial review; Art.32.; Arts.226/227.
                                                                      G
      (f)    Federalism

      (g)    Secularism.

      (h)    The sovereign, democratic, republican structure.
                                                                      H
    520     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A          (i)   Freedom and dignity of the individual.

           (j)   Unity and integrity of the Nation.

           (k)   The principle of equality; not every feature of
                 equality, but the quintessence of equal justice
B
           (I)   The rule of equality in public employment.

           (m)   The 'essence' of other Fundamental Rights in Part
                 Ill.
c          (n)   The concept of social and economic justice-to build
                 a welfare State; part IV in toto.

           (o)   The balance between Fundamental Rights and
                 Directive Principles.
D
           (p)   The Parliamentary system of government.

           (q)   The principle of free and fair elections.

           (r)   Limitations upon the amending power conferred by
E                Art. 368.

           (s)   Independence of the judiciary; but within the four
                 corners of the Constitution and not beyond that.

           (t)   Independent and efficient judicial system.
F
           (u)   Powers of the Supreme Court under Arts. 32, 136,
                 141, 142.

           (v)   Effective access to justice."

G                                             (see page 2236-2238)

       30. Of these features 'free and fair election' in Clause (r)
    comes closest with the question discussed in this case.

          31. This Court has already held relying on the Constitution
H
  J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF                 521
    INDIA AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
Bench judgment in Poudya/ (supra) that ensuring uniformity in      A
the value of votes is not a constitutionally mandated imperative
of free and fair election under our constitutional dispensation.
Therefore, the argument on the question of Basic Structure is
also without substance and is rejected.
                                                                   B
     32. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any
merit in the appeal and which is accordingly dismissed. Parties
are left to bear their own costs.

N.J.                                       Appeal dismissed.