445. Another question, which I may now briefly consider is the date from which the original respondent could be said to have held herself out as a candidate. If she was not a “candidate”, upto 25-1-1971, as defined by law, that would in itself be a sufficient ground for wiping out the effect of findings of the learned Judge on the two periods dealt with above. 446. The learned Judge had inferred that the Prime Minister was a “candidate” from 29-12-1970 as she had held herself out as a candidate when she answered a question put to her on 29-12-1970 at a Press Conference at New Delhi. The question and answer were as follows: Q. A short while ago there was a meeting of the opposition leaders and there they said that the Prime Minister is changing her constituency from Rae Bareli to Gurgaon? In the witness box the Prime Minister disclosed that what she meant by the answer was that she would not contest from the Gurgaon constituency. On further cross-examination, she stated: “It is wrong to assume that while giving the reply marked 'B' in the transcript (Ext. 132) I conveyed that I was not changing my constituency from Rae Bareli at all and emphatically held out that I would contest election again from Rae Bareli. In my opinion there is no basis for this assumption.” 447. The learned Judge had in preference to the statement of the Prime Minister herself as to what she meant, together with the evidence given by her Secretariat that there were entreaties or offers to her from other constituencies that she should be their representative, relied on Press reports and what members of other parties thought and did as a result of the abovementioned statement of the Prime Minister on 29-12-1970. The learned Judge also referred to paragraph 1(A) of the additional written statement which runs as follows: “That in fact there were offers, from other Parliamentary constituencies in India, requesting this respondent to stand as a candidate for the Lok Sabha from those Constituencies and a final decision in regard to the Constituency was announced by the All India Congress Committee only on January 29, 1971, and she only held herself out as a candidate on filing her nomination at Rae Bareli on 1st of February, 1971 (underlining is by me.)” He had also referred to the visits made by Congress (R) leaders to Rae Bareily, particularly. Shri Dinesh Singh, and Shri Gulzarilal Nanda and by Prof. Sher Singh. He had not accepted the explanation that they had gone there of their own accord. 448. The learned Judge had also considered several English authorities but had noted that the law here was not the same as in England. It had been laid in Munniswami Gounder v. Khader Sheriff, (1953) 4 Ele LR 283 at p. 292 (Ele. Tri., Vellore) where it was said: “In this respect the law in this country makes a significant departure and that departure, in our opinion, again emphasises the application of vital democratic principle, in the light of differing conditions. We may here note,