adopted by the learned Judge, however, was that as the Prime Minister's Office had issued her tour programmes with the approval of the Prime Minister the result must be in the language of the learned Judge himself. ".......... the tour programmes carried on an implied direction that the State Government should also get constructed rostrums and arrange for public address system for the election meetings to be addressed by her on 1st of February 1971 and 25th of February 1971. It should be presumed that the respondent No. 1 as Prime Minister of this country and with five years experience of that office behind her in 1971, also knew that the said work was to be done by the officers of the State Government." 466. This meant that the learned Judge was holding the Prime Minister herself responsible for instructing the State Government knowing that it will make the necessary arrangements through its servants. The case thus accepted that the Prime Minister was employing the State Government as her agency in procuring the aid of the officers concerned was neither set up nor put in issue. Apart from this objection the learned Judge overlooked that the provisions of Section 23(7) were intended to prevent solicitations for aid and not sending of information to the State Government in the course of ordinary official business even if the candidate concerned knows that the State Government is bound under the rules to make the necessary arrangements dictated by the needs of security of the Prime Minister and convenience of the public. 467. The view of the learned Judge involves holding that the "persona" (a term derived from the concept of the mask worn by Greek actors on the stage in a drama) of a candidate during an election must not only be different from that of the Prime Minister, but also that when the two capacities are held by the same person, what is due to the occupant of the office of the Prime Minister must be withdrawn when the same person acts as a candidate. On a similar argument, with regard to use of helicopters and aeroplanes, the learned Judge himself had refused to acknowledge what amounts to a separable legal personality of a candidate in the eyes of law. The ground given for this difference between the use of aeroplanes and helicopters by the Prime Minister and the use of rostrums by the her was that the former was more connected with the office or capacity of the Prime Minister and that the letter was exclusively meant for her use in the capacity of a candidate. Even if we were to recognise this distinction between the "persona" of the Prime Minister and that of a candidate, it is impossible to separate the special arrangements made for the security of the person of the Prime Minister from those to which she may be entitled as a candidate only. It is impossible to deny at any time the facilities and precautions meant for the person who holds the office of the Prime Minister to the person just because she also figures as a candidate at an election. So long as the person is the same what is meant for the person must be attributed to the persona or capacity of the Prime Minister and not to that of a candidate only. The learned Judge, however, thought that a candidate who happens to hold the office of the Prime Minister of the country, is not entitled to the facilities or precautionary