preventive detention can vote. The prohibition was upheld on several grounds, including, inter alia, it promotes the object of free and fair elections. Indeed there are decisions of this Court that advert to the importance of elections in democracy, described as the barometer and lifeline of parliamentary system and its setup.13 (ii) In K. Ananda Nambiar and Another v. Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras and Others14, challenge to the Defence of India Rules, 1962 in its application to Members of Parliament, was rejected on the ground that members of the legislature cannot claim freedom from arrest. Detention does not violate privileges of the Members of Parliament. (iii) In State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe15, this Court while allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court has misdirected itself in granting bail to an accused convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive 12 (1997) 6 SCC 1. 13 See Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (Election Commission