Statutory right to vote and validating legislation can be regulated by Parliament within constitutional election-law limits.

Parliament cannot be accused of mala fides when it acts within legislative competence. A validating Act may retrospectively cure defects identified by an earlier judicial interpretation if the legal basis of that decision is removed, without amounting to impermissible judicial overruling. The right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, so Parliament may prescribe conditions governing electoral status and temporary voting restrictions, including for persons in custody. On that reasoning, the Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 was treated as constitutionally valid and the challenged election-law changes were left intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mala fides could be attributed to Parliament in enacting the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013; (ii) whether a validating Act could lawfully cure the defects noticed by the earlier judicial interpretation and alter the effect of the law retrospectively; (iii) whether the Legislature could prescribe the terms on which the right to vote and contest elections is enjoyed; and (iv) whether the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 was constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether mala fides could be attributed to Parliament in enacting the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013.

Analysis: Mala fides cannot be attributed to the legislature where the enactment is within legislative competence. The challenge to legislative motive was therefore irrelevant once the law-making power of Parliament was shown to exist under the constitutional provisions governing elections.

Conclusion: Mala fides were not attributable to Parliament.

Issue (ii): Whether a validating Act could lawfully cure the defects noticed by the earlier judicial interpretation and alter the effect of the law retrospectively.

Analysis: A competent legislature may validate an earlier law by removing the defects pointed out by the Court and may do so retrospectively. Such legislation does not amount to impermissible judicial overruling if the basis of the earlier decision is changed by curing the vice in the statute.

Conclusion: The validating amendment was legally permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the Legislature could prescribe the terms on which the right to vote and contest elections is enjoyed.

Analysis: The right to vote is a statutory right and not a fundamental or constitutional right. It is therefore subject to statutory conditions, and Parliament could lawfully clarify that a person does not cease to be an elector merely because the person is in prison or lawful custody and is temporarily barred from voting.

Conclusion: The Legislature could determine the statutory conditions governing voting and electoral status.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Parliament had competence under the constitutional scheme relating to elections to amend the election law. The impugned Act did not trench upon the constitutional limitations identified in the earlier judgment dealing with disqualification of sitting members. The amendment was also consistent with universal suffrage and the presumption of innocence, particularly in relation to undertrials.

Conclusion: The impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 was constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned amendment was held to be within Parliament's legislative competence and effective as a valid curative and validating measure, leaving the challenged election-law changes intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature competent to enact election law may retrospectively validate and cure a statutory defect by changing the legal basis of the earlier judicial decision, and a statutory right to vote may be regulated by Parliament within the constitutional framework governing elections.

---