Judgment :- N.K. JAIN, C. J. 1. This PIL has been fried by the petitioner, alleged to be a Founder Trustee of the VOICE, with the prayer to issue a Writ of Declaration, order or direction declaring that the disqualification under Section 8(1) to 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act cannot be stayed against the object of the Act and consequently directing the Returning Officer under the authority of the respondents 1 and 2 to strictly comply with the Act. The petitioner referred to and relied upon the decisions in R.S. Naik v. A.R. Antulay ( 1984 (2) S.C.C. 183 ), Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India ( 1997 (6) S.C.C. 1 ) and Ramnarangs case ( 1995 (2) S.C.C. 513 ) and also the decision in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar & others ( 2000 (8) S.C.C. 216 ). He also relied on the notification dated 28.8.1997 issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its power of superintendence vested by Article 324 of the Constitution, giving detailed directions, which has been re-affirmed by another meeting of the Election Commission held on 17.4.2001.” 2. No doubt in an appropriate case, this Court can direct the authorities if there is any violation of fundamental right, or the issue involved touches the conscience of the Court. But at the same time, PIL cannot be used for publicity or political motivation. So far as the law is concerned, it is well settled that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and refer to the case laws cited, as also the maintainability of the writ petition, at this stage. The election process has already started and the Election Commission has issued the notification on 1.4.2001 to hold election in Tamil Nadu on 10.5.2001, filing of nomination from 16.4.2001 and scrutiny on 24.4.2001. It is settled that once the process has started, the judicial remedy is to be postponed till after the completion of such proceedings. Even if the petitioner is not questioning or stalling the election process and only seeking the direction for subserving and completing the election as per law, it is not necessary to issue any direction. The Election Commission is a high Constitutional functionary. The power vested is expected to be discharged reasonably, objectively and independently and in accordance with law. Even if the petitioner is not questioning or stalling the election process and only seeking the direction for subserving and completing the election as per law, it is not necessary to issue any direction. The Election Commission is a high Constitutional functionary. The power vested is expected to be discharged reasonably, objectively and independently and in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, no case to interfere or to pass any specific order as prayed for. That apart, the petition is filed by VOICE, who is not a voter or aggrieved persoa. So, mere apprehension of the petitioner that the Returning Officers of the respective constituencies will not perform their respective duties and decide the issue as per law, is uncalled for as every one/Returning Officer is expected to perform his duties only in accordance with law. Further, this Court has not interfered in PIL W.P. Nos. 6506, 7244 and 7514 of 2001 on 20.4.2001, which were dismissed. Since we are not passing any specific order, we have not heard on the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge this issue and it is not necessary to consider and decide the locus standi and the maintainability of the writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. is also dismissed.