Election Matters – The restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof – The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that – misconceived.– Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference 2023 INSC 804
Availability of alternative efficacious remedy is no bar to the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction – Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference – 2023 INSC 804
Article 226 – For striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made -Supreme Court sets aside HC judgment that had struck down Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998 – Union of India vs Manjurani Routray – 2023 INSC 787