Read the following statements (I & II) carefully:
I. Article 329 is related to bars to interference by courts in electoral matters.
II. Article 329 A was omitted through the 44th Constitutional Amendment.
The correct option is :

Question

Read the following statements (I & II) carefully: 
I. Article 329 is related to bars to interference by courts in electoral matters.
II. Article 329 A was omitted through the 44th Constitutional Amendment. 
The correct option is :

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 3:

[Detailed explanation of why it is correct — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

The correct option is 3 because both statements (I) and (II) are factually correct regarding the constitutional provisions in India concerning electoral matters. Statement I asserts that **Article 329 is related to bars to interference by courts in electoral matters**. This is absolutely correct. Article 329, falling under Part XV (Elections) of the Indian Constitution, explicitly restricts the jurisdiction of courts in questions concerning the validity of election laws or the actual conduct of elections. It mandates that no election to either House of Parliament or to the State Legislature shall be called into question except by an election petition presented to such authority as provided by law (currently, the High Court). This provision ensures the smooth and timely completion of the electoral process without undue judicial delays or interference, emphasizing the exclusive role of the Election Commission and the designated authority for election disputes.

Statement II asserts that **Article 329 A was omitted through the 44th Constitutional Amendment**. This is also correct. Article 329-A was a controversial provision inserted into the Constitution by the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 during the Emergency period. This article created a special mechanism to exclude the judicial review of the election disputes involving the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha, effectively placing them above the legal scrutiny that applied to other members of Parliament. It was widely seen as an attempt to protect the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, from the pending Allahabad High Court judgment that had nullified her election. Recognizing that this provision severely undermined the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly judicial review and the rule of law, the subsequent government repealed it. Thus, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, was passed to omit the controversial Article 329-A, restoring the balance between the three organs of government. Since both statements are correct, Option 3 is the right answer.

The incorrect option is 1:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Option 1 states that only statement I is correct. This is incorrect because, as established, statement II regarding the omission of Article 329 A by the 44th Amendment is also a crucial fact of Indian constitutional history. Statement I correctly identifies Article 329's purpose, which is to create a specific legal channel (the election petition) for questioning election results, thereby barring direct court interference. However, choosing this option means neglecting the truth of statement II. The constitutional provision introduced by the 39th Amendment (Article 329-A) was a critical emergency measure, and its repeal by the 44th Amendment was a significant democratic reform, highlighting the temporary and ultimately flawed nature of the original insertion.

The incorrect option is 2:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Option 2 suggests that only statement II is correct. This is incorrect because statement I is factually sound and essential to understanding the legal framework of elections. Statement II is correct as the 44th Amendment omitted Article 329-A, reversing a major constitutional anomaly created during the Emergency. However, Article 329 (Statement I) is the fundamental provision that governs the general bar on judicial interference in elections and establishes the election petition as the sole remedy. By selecting Option 2, you acknowledge the historical correction but ignore the fundamental, enduring provision of Article 329 that defines the boundaries of judicial involvement in electoral challenges today.

The incorrect option is 4:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Option 4 claims that both statements I and II are incorrect. This is definitively false. Statement I correctly identifies Article 329's role as a bar on court interference, ensuring that election disputes are dealt with under specific statutory authority rather than ordinary court jurisdiction. Statement II correctly pinpoints the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) as the mechanism used to remove Article 329-A, which was originally inserted by the 39th Amendment (1975) to insulate the elections of certain high office-bearers. Since both statements align perfectly with the historical and contemporary legal provisions of the Indian Constitution, declaring both incorrect would be a factual error.