that a candidate should not be penalised because of such an error on the part of the Election Commission. The third object of the change effected by Act 40 of 1975 is that a candidate should not suffer or be held guilty of corrupt practice because of any act done by any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Section 123 (7) of the RP Act in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty. None of the three objects mentioned above has any taint of unconstitutionality and I find it difficult to hold that the impugned provisions impinge upon the principle of free and fair elections. 237. So far as the newly added provisio to Section 123 (7) is concerned, it may be stated that the act in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty of the Government employees referred to above would in the very nature of things have to be of a kind which is germane to their official duties. It may include steps taken by the Government employees for maintenance of law and order or in connection with the security of a candidate or other persons. It would not, however, include canvassing or doing such acts which may properly be considered to be part of the election propaganda for furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election. In taking action under the above provision, it must be borne in mind as stated on page 152 of Free Elections by W. J. M. Mackenzie that in the last resort "the system of free elections depends on a certain separation of powers between administrators (or policemen) and politicians : there must be some public sense that police and administration serve the public, not the party leaders". What would be permissible under the above provision would be that which is conceived to be done in public interest and not something conceived to be done in the personal interest of a candidate. In spite of some difficulty which may arise in borderline cases, this distinction must be borne in mind. If, however, because of doing some thing conceived in public interest, e.g., as in the present case the security arrangement for the person holding the office of the Prime Minister, some advantage may also possible accrue to a candidate, it will have to be regarded as incidental and would not detract from action taken under the above provision being in public interest. As against that, any action taken with a view to further the personal interest of a candidate should not be allowed to be camouflaged as an action taken in public interest. Care must be taken to ensure that public interest is not allowed to degenerate into a cloak for furtherance of the personal interests of a candidate in an election. The discharge or purported discharge of official duty must necessarily have public interest and not the personal interest of a candidate as its basis. The courts while dealing with the newly added proviso to Section 123 (7) should construe it, if reasonably possible, in such a manner as would sustain the validity of that proviso. In case there is abuse of the above provision, the proper course, as already mentioned, would be to strike down the action taken under the proviso and not the proviso itself. 238. One other change brought about by Act 40 of 1975 is the addition of an explanation in Section 77 of the RP Act. According to the new explanation, any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilities