B.N.Kirpal, J. (1) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not understand the impugned judgment to mean that the law declared in A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai & Ors., 1984 (3) SCR 74 , is incorrect. The observations made in the impugned judgment are clear. Articles 326 and 327 cannot be so interpreted as to enable taking away the jurisdiction or to abridge the powers of the Election Commission under Art. 324. (2) A.C. Joses case does not apply to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in A.C. Joses case, it was by an executive order that Electronic Voting Machines were sought to be used which was not permissible being contrary to the rules. Now that Sec. 61-A has been inserted in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in 1989, the aforesaid decision cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. (3) WHILE considering the validity of the said section we are in agreement with the decision of the High Court that the said section is valid. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.