better than Courts know and understand these. It is only where a piece of legislation clearly infringes a constitutional provision or indubitably overrides a constitutional purpose or mandate or prohibition that Courts can interfere. After having listened to the lengthy and vehement arguments of the election petitioner. I fail to see any invalidity in this provision. 463. I will now take up issue No. 3 of the 1st set of issues on which, after rejecting the contention that the erection of barricades and the provision of the police force for security purposes by the Government of U.P. during the election tours of the Prime Minister on 1-2-1971 and 25-2-1971 in the Rae Bareli constituency, contravened Section 123(7) the learned Judge held that nevertheless, the arrangements made by the District Magistrate of Rae Bareli, the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, the Executive Engineer. P.W.D. and the Engineer. Hydel Department, for constructing rostrums and the supply of power for loud speakers, on the instructions given by the State Government, was a corrupt practice struck by the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Act. As I have already indicated, the only evidence relied upon by the learned Judge for this extraordinary finding after having rejected a similar allegation of a corrupt practice under issue No.2 on account of provision of the Air Force planes and helicopters flown by members of the Air Force on necessary official instructions, to enable the Prime Minister to go to places where she could address election meetings on 1-2-1971 and 25-2-1971 was that the visits of the Prime Minister to her constituency on these occasions were preceded by the issue from the Prime Minister's Office of the tour programmes to the officials of the District through the State Government with the knowledge and consent of the Prime Minister. The State Government had acted in compliance with the instructions issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in 1958 read with R.71 (6) of what is known as the Blue Book. The relevant part of this rule reads as follows: “It has been noticed that the rostrum arrangements are not always properly made because the hosts are sometimes unable to bear the cost. As the security of the Prime Minister is the concern of the State, all arrangements for putting up the rostrum, the barricades etc. at the meeting place, including that of an election meeting, will have to be made by the State Government concerned.” 464. The Government of India had also issued a letter (Ex. A-21) dated 1911-1969 inviting the attention of the State Governments to Rule 71(6) mentioned above and directing them to ensure that, whenever rostrums are constructed on such occasions. They should conform to certain specifications laid down with due regard to security considerations. The letter also directed the State Governments to bill the political party concerned with expenses upto 25% of the cost of the rostrums or Rs. 25,000/- whichever is less. The letter also directed that extravagance in expenditure should be avoided. 465. It was proved by the evidence of Shri R.K. Kaul (P. W. 58) the Home Secretary in the Government of U.P. that rostrums and arrangements for barricading are made by the local officials employing contractors for the purpose under instructions issued by the State Government. The reasoning