Shah Jayanthi Lal Amba Lal v. Kasturi Lal Nagin Das Dosi (1968) 36 ELR 188 (Guj): Baijnath Singh Vaidya v. R.P. Singh (1968) 36 ELR 327 (All) : Bishmbhar Dayal v : Raj Rajeshwar, (1968) 39 ELR 363 at p. 376 (All): Dinesh Dang v. Daulat Ram. (1968) 39 ELR 463 at p. 476 (Raj) Shyamlal v. Mansa Din. (1968) 37 ELR 67 at p. 89 (All): B. P. Maurya v. Prakashvir Shastri. (1968) 37 ELR 137 at p. 147 (All): Sohadar Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, (1968) 37 ELR 176 at p. 188 (Madh Pra) : Vishwanath Pd. v. Salamat Ullah, (1965) 27 ELR 145 at p. 186 (All) and Lachchi Ram v. J. P. Mukhariya, (1953) 9 ELR 149 at p. 157 (Ele. Tri-Gwalior). 484. In addition Section 8 of the Act 40 of 1975 has made the position on this point also very clear by providing that, in Section 123 of the Act in clause (3) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end : "Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause". 485. As in the case of other amendments, this amendment was also challenged on behalf of the election petitioner on the ground that it could be misused. I am afraid that attacks made on such sweeping suggestions of likelihood of misuse, in future, cannot possibly succeed. It has been repeatedly laid down by this Court that the possibility of misuse of a power given by a statute cannot invalidate the provision conferring the power (See : Dr. N. B. Khare v. State of Delhi (1950) SCR 519 at p. 526 = (AIR 1950 SC 211 at p. 215) : State of W.B. v. A.A. Sarkar (1952) SCR 284 at p. 301 = (AIR 1952 SC 75 at p. 81) : R. K. Dalmia v. Justic Tendolkar (1959) SCR 279 at p. 306 = (AIR 1958 SC 538 at p. 551): T. K. Mudaliar v. Venkatachalam (1955) 2 SCR 1196 at p. 1239 = (AIR 1956 SC 246 at p. 266) : Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, (1964) 6 SCR 368 at p. 382-383 = (AIR 1964 SC 1823 at p. 1831-1832) : M. R. Deka v. N.E.F. Rly. (1964) 5 SCR 683 = (AIR 1964 SC 600). The occasion to complain can only arise when there is such alleged misuse. Even the possibility of such misuse of this power by so responsible an official as the Election Commissioner cannot be easily conceived of. 486. It was submitted that the Election Commissioner's decision on this question was unreasonable. The best class of evidence as to what is and what is not to be reasonably regarded as a religious symbol, according to the customs, mores, traditions, and outlook of the people of a country at a certain time consists of contemporaneous decisions of Courts. It is useless to quote passages from ancient texts about the sacredness of the cow in support of the use of the cow as a religious symbol today. The use of pictures of this excellent and useful animal is so frequently made today for commercial purposes or purposes other than religious that the representation of a cow and a calf cannot, except in some special and purely religious contexts, be held, to have a religious significance. I, therefore, see no force at all in this submission of the election petitioner. 487. The only question argued with some seriousness in the election petitioner's appeal was that the election expenses which from the subject-