were disqualified at the time of their election because they were members of tribunals appointed by the Minister under the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, which entitled them to a small fee in respect of attendance at a Tribunal. A Select Committee reported that the disqualification was incurred inadvertently and in accordance with their recommendation the Coatbridge and Springbourn elections (validation). Bills was introduced to validate the irregular election (H.C. Deb. 1945-46) 414 c. 564-6). (See also H. C. 3 (1945-46); ibid, 71 (1945-46) and ibid 92 (1945-46). We have also noticed two earlier instances of retrospective legislation, e.g., the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act. 1813 (Halsbury Statutes of England P. 467) and Section 2 of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919 (ibid P. 515). Great stress was laid on the word 'declare' in Art. 191 (1) (a), but we are unable to imply any limitation on the powers of the Legislature from this word. Declaration can be made effective as from an earlier date." 230. The above two authorities of this Court clearly lend support for the view that it is permissible to amend a law relating to elections with retrospective operation. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has criticised the observation of Sikri. J. reproduced above on the score that in the United Kingdom amendments in election law have not been made to affect pending proceedings in courts. This is essentially a matter for the legislature to decide this does not affect the competence of the legislature to make a change in election law with retrospective effect. In any case, the proposition of law laid down in the case of Kanta Kathuria. (AIR 1970 SC 694) is binding upon us and I do not find any reason to detract either from the soundness of the view expressed therein or its binding effect. 231. The Privy Council also upheld in the case of Arevesekera v. Jayalilaka. 1932 AC 260 an order in Council giving retrospective effect to an election law in Ceylon. This question arose in the following circumstances. An Order in Council of 1923 made provision as to the Legislative Council in Ceylon, but reserve to His Majesty power to revoke, alter or amend the Order. The appellant, as common informer, brought an action to recover penalties under the Order from the respondent, who he alleged had sat and voted after his seat had become vacant under its provisions by reason of his having a pecumary interest in a contract with the Government. In 1928, after the action had been brought, but before its trial, an amending Order in Council was made providing that the action should be dismissed, it also amended the Order of 1923 so as to except the office held by the respondent from its operation. It was held that the Order of 1928 was valid, having regard to the power reserved by the Order of 1923, and was an effective defence to the action, although it was retrospective in its operation Lord Darling in the above context observed: "It was argued that the Order in Council of November 1, 1928, was ultra vires as affecting to take away rights already in existence, thus having a retrospective action. The effect, however, of the Order of 1928, as expressed