Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.B. Shah, P. Venkatarama Reddi and D.M. Dharmadhikari JUDGMENT
M.B. Shah, J.
1. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (No. 4 of 2002) ("Ordinance" for short) promulgated by the President of India on 24th August, 2002.
2. There was an era when a powerful or a rich or a strong or a dacoit aged more than 60 years married a beautiful young girl despite her resistance. Except to weep, she had no choice of selecting her male. To a large extent, such situation does not prevail today. Now, young persons are selecting mates of their choice after verifying full details thereof.
Should we not have such a situation in selecting a candidate contesting elections? In a vibrant democracy--is it not required that a little voter should know bio-data of his/her would be Rulers, Law-makers of Destiny-maker of the Nation?
3. Is there any necessity of keeping in dark the voters that their candidate was involved in criminal cases of murder, dacoity or rape or has acquired the wealth by unjustified means? May be that he is acquitted because Investigating Officer failed to unearth the truth or because the witnesses turned hostile. In some cases, apprehending danger to their life, witnesses fail to reveal what has seen by them.
4. Is there any necessity of permitting candidates or his supporters to use unaccounted money during elections? If assets are declared, would it not amount to having some control on unaccounted election expenditure?
5. It is equally true that right step in that direction is taken by amending the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms 
MANU/SC/0394/2002 : [2002]3SCR696 . Still however, question to be decided is--whether it is in accordance with what has been declared in the said judgment?
6. After concluding hearing of the arguments on 23rd October, 2002, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. Before the judgment could be pronounced, the Ordinance was repealed and on 28th December 2002, the Representation of the People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 ("Amended Act" for short) was notified to come into force with retrospective effect. Thereafter, an amendment application was moved before us challenging the validity of Section 33B of the Amendment Act which was granted because there is no change in the cause of action nor in the wording of Section 33B of the Amended Act, validity of which is under challenge. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India, time to file additional counter was granted and the matter was further heard on 31st January, 2003.
7. It is apparent that there is no change in the wording (even full stop or coma) of Sections 33A and 33B of the Ordinance and........