and removed the appellant’s disqualification retrospectively. On the question as to whether the appellant was holding an office of profit and hence was disqualified, Sikri, Ray and Reddy, JJ. held that the appellant was not holding an office of profit. Hidayatullah C.J. and Mitter, J., however, held that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant held an office of profit. All the five Judges constituting the Constitution Bench were however unanimous on the point that the Act of 1969 had removed the disqualification of the appellant retrospectively. Hidayatullah, C.J. speaking for himself and Mitter. J. observed : ‘‘It is also well recognised that Parliament and Legislatures of the States can make their laws operate retrospectively. Any law that can be made prospectively may be made with retrospective operation except that certain kinds of laws cannot operate retroactively. This is not one of them. This position being firmly grounded we have to look for limitations if any in the Constitution Article 191 (which has been quoted earlier) itself recognises the power of the Legislature of the State to declare by law that the holder of an office shall not be disqualified for being chosen as a member. The Article says that a person shall be disqualified if he holds an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State unless that office is declared by the Legislature not to disqualify the holder. Power is thus reserved to the Legislature of the State to make the declaration. There is nothing in the words of the article to indicate that this declaration cannot be made with retrospective effect.’’ It was further observed: ‘‘Regard being had to the legislative practice in this country and in the absence of a clear prohibition either express or implied we are satisfied that the Act cannot be declared ineffective in its retrospective operation.’’ Sikri J. (as he then was) speaking for himself, Ray J. (as he then was) and Reddy. J. dealt with the matter in the following words: ‘‘Mr. Chagla, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Rajasthan State Legislature was not competent ‘‘to declare retrospectively��� under Article 191 (1) (a) the Constitution. It seems to us that there is no force in this contention. It has been held in numerous cases by this Court that the State Legislatures and Parliament can legislate retrospectively subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Apart from the question of fundamental rights, no express restriction has been placed on the power of the legislature of the State, and we are unable to imply, in the context, any restriction. Practice of the British Parliament does not oblige us to place any implied restriction. We notice that the British Parliament in one case validated the election : (Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law Privileges Proceedings and Usage of Parliament – Seventeenth (1964) Edition) – ‘After the general election of 1945 it was found that the persons elected for the Coatbridge Division of Lanark and the Spring-bourn Division of Glassgow