JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition brought by the State of Tamil Nadu, certain directions issued by the Election Commission of India prohibiting the use of official vehicles and personnel -for purposes of security - in election -campaigning by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu are assailed. In particular, the communication bearing No. 437/6/94-Vol-III dated 31st March, 1994 rejecting the request of the Tamil Nadu Government for exemption from the operation of the directions contained in the Election Commission circular dated 31st December, 1993, is called in question. 2. It is stated in the petition that the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is one of the persons who is placed in 'Z+' category for security purposes and the prohibition by the Election Commission against use of official vehicles and personnel even for security purposes would have the effect of exposing the Chief Minister to grave security risk. The direction of the Election Commission, it is said, seeks to compel security lapses. 3. It is also pointed out that in the order dated 12th January, 1994 issued by the very Election Commission itself, the restriction on use of vehicles was made "subject to any security instructions issued in respect of any such individual." In the case of the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, it is stated that not only specific instructions are issued in regard to her security, but also a statutory. enactment called the "Tamil Nadu Special Security Group Act, 1993" exists which contemplates and provides for security of a particular level to be decided by the Director, Special Security Group, from time to time, having regard to the exigencies of circumstances and the security perceptions. 4. While we are conscious of the effort being made by the Election Commission to ensure cleanliness of the electoral process and for the protection and ensurement of free and fair polls, we are afraid, the Election Commission cannot, as it seeks to do here, out of consideration the security requirements of certain political personalities who might, in view of extremist and terrorist activities and threats to their lives, require security of a high order. To confine the security to only the Prime Minister of the country, as the Election Commission has done, and to deny, as the communication dated 31st March, 1994 seeks to do, to all others may not reflect a proper perception and appreciation of the problem. To confine the security to only the Prime Minister of the country, as the Election Commission has done, and to deny, as the communication dated 31st March, 1994 seeks to do, to all others may not reflect a proper perception and appreciation of the problem. At all events, the Election Commission will have to take note of the statutory provisions. 5. We, accordingly, make an interim order that the security arrangements envisaged by the "Tamil Nadu Special Security Group Act, 1993" and the obligation of the authorities to provide such security thereunder, shall not, in any manner, be affected by the decision of the Election Commission as communicated under No. 437/6/94-Vol-III dated 31st March, 1994 or any other earlier direction. 6. However, we should make one aspect clear. Having regard to the responsibilities and obligations of the Election Commission to ensuring purity of the electoral process, it is open to the Election Commission, if it has material to doubt that the assessments of the security requirement made by the Director of the Tamil Nadu Special Security Group under the statute are so manifestly and unduly excessive as to amount to promotion, indirectly, of partisan electoral interests,, to bring such matter to the notice of the State Government for appropriate corrective steps. 7. Liberty to mention.