that the operation of the Act is prospective or restropective would make no difference. It is also permissible to amend a law which is basis of the decision of a court with retrospective effect and rely upon the provisions of the amended law in appeal against the above decision of the court. The court of appeal in such an event gives full effect to the amended law even though such amendment has been made after the decision of the original court. The one field in which it is not permissible to make a law with retrospective effect is contained is clause (1) of Article 20 according to which no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. Apart from the field in which there is a constitutional prohibition for giving retrospective effect to a law power of making amendment in law with restrospective effect has now become a part of normal legislative process. Question then arises as to whether in spite of the general competence of the legislature to make a law with retrospective effect is the legislature rendered incompetent to make a law with retrospective effect in election matters? The answer to this question in my opinion should plainly be in the negative. Election laws are a part of the normal legislative process and what is permitted in the matter of ordinary legislation would also be permissible in the matter of legislation relating to elections unless there be some provision in the Constitution which forbids such a course. We have not been referred to any provision in the Constitution which has the effect of creating a bar in the way of the legislature making a law relating to elections with retrospective operation. If a party seeks to carve out an exception to the normal rule, it can do so only on the basis of some cogent ground. No such ground has been brought to our notice. The matter indeed is not res integra because there have been two cases wherein this Court has upheld the validity of the law making amendments in election laws with restrospective effect. 228. The first such case was State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose. AIR 1962 SC 945 (supra). It arose out of elections to the Cuttack Municipality held in December 1957 to March 1958 as a result of which 27 appellants were declared elected as Councillors. The respondent, who was defeated at the elections filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the elections. The High Court held that the electoral rolls had not been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Municipalities Act, 1950, as the age qualification had been published too late thereby curtailing the period of claims and objections to the preliminary roll to 2 days from 21 days as prescribed. The High Court consequently set aside the elections. The State took the view that the judgement affected not merely the Cuttack Municipality but other municipalities also. Accordingly, the Governor promulgated an Ordinance validating the election to the Cuttack Municipality and validating the electoral rolls prepared in respect of various municipalities. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the Ordinance was unconstitutional. The High