the learned counsel for the election petitioner throughout his arguments that the law making powers had been really abused by a majority in Parliament for the purposes of serving majority party and personal ends which were constitutionally unauthorised it was even alleged that the President of India had also become a party to the misuse of Constitutional powers by passing an ordinance depriving Courts of jurisdiction to encertain Habeas Corpus petitions so that members of Parliament belonging to opposition parties detained under preventive detention laws may not secure release and oppose proposals which became embodied in the 1975 Act and the 39th Amendment. It is when the country is faced with issues of this nature that the constitutionally vital role of the judicature as a co-ordinate and independent organ of a democratic system of Government, comes into prominence and has to be performed without fear or favour affection or illwill as the custodian of constitutionality. 393. In the circumstances indicated above, it seemed to me to be absolutely essential for us to call upon the parties defending or assailing the 39th Amendment and the Acts of 1974 and 1975 to take us inter alia into the merits of the cases of the two sides and the findings given by the trying Judge so as to enable us to see how far these findings were justifiable under the law as it stood even before the amendments by the Acts of 1974 and 1975 how they were affected by these amendments and how they were related to the validity of Section 4 of the 39th Amendment Speaking for myself. I clearly indicated to learned counsel for the parties that I regard the nature and merits of the case decided to to be of crucial importance not only in considering the validity of the 39th Amendment and of the Acts of 1974 and 1975 but also in the wider interests of justice which are bound to be served by the vindication of the case of the party which should on merits win. Elementary considerations of justice required that the party with a better case should not be deprived of an opportunity of justifying its position, on facts and law touching the merits of the case in the highest Court of the land particularly when the original respondent who happens to be the Prime Minister of this country was accused of corrupt practices to secure her election and then of abuse of constitutional power and position to shield them. The high office of the original respondent far from disabling this Court from investigating such allegations ought to provide a good ground for this court to go into the merits of the case if we are not really deprived of our jurisdiction to do that by Section 4 of the 39th Amendment. This follows from the rule of law as I understand it embodied in our Constitution National interests can not or at least should not I believe suffer if justice and right as determined by the highest Court in the country prevail. 394. Citizens of our country take considerable pride in being able to challenge before superior Courts even an exercise of constituent power resting on the combined strength and authority of Parliament and the State legislatures. This Court when properly called upon by the humblest citizen in a proceeding before it to test the Constitutional validity of either an ordinary statute or of a Constitutional amendment has to do so by applying the