The provision of an Election Commission tribunal handling such cases was dispensed with in 2001 and these are now referred directly to the High Court Division.

The slow pace of adjudication of election disputes has a certain fallout. There are disputed results that seem set to outlive the tenure of a parliament! Thus the legal provision becomes ineffective for all practical purposes. It encourages, or at least fails to discourage, malpractice and irregularities in the elections. The point is particularly relevant when the clout of black money and muscle power is deemed to be a major obstacle on the way to holding free and fair elections.

The court, of course, has its own limitations as it is overburdened with a huge number of cases of different kinds. Nevertheless, considering the grave importance of settling election disputes expeditiously -- the prime objective of which is to curb unfair activities during elections -- there should be some special arrangement for hearing and adjudicating election-related cases. The whole task better be accomplished within the time limit of a maximum of one year. The court may think in terms of evolving a mechanism to quickly dispose of the cases.

That the dispute resolution system has not been very effective is proved by the fact that no member of parliament has so far been unseated following adjudication.

The legal protection provided to the candidates on the receiving end of election irregularities has to have practical application. The long-drawn process of resolving the cases must be transformed into a quick-serving system in order that the wrong doers are made to pay for their misdeeds.