opposed to the spirit of democracy or republicanism supposed to pervade the Constitution but not expressed in word. (Para 352) Even though an Act is put in the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment its provisions would be open to attack on the ground that they destroy or damage the basic structure if the fundemental right or rights taken away or abrogated pertains or pertain to basic structure. But the Act cannot be attacked for a collateral reason, namely the provisions of the Act have destroyed or damaged some other basic structure says, for instance, democracy or separation of powers. (Para 355) So if it be assumed that these election laws amendment Acts even after they were put in the Ninth Schedule by constitutional amendment remained open to attack for contravention, if any, of the fundamental rights these Acts would not be open to attack on the ground that their provisions destroyed or damaged an essential feature of democracy, namely free and fair election. The Acts remain part of the ordinary law of the land. They did not attain the status of constitutional law merely because they were put in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 360) Retrospective operation of any law would cause hardship to some persons or other. This inevitable; but that is no reason to deny to the legislature the power to enact retrospective law. In the case of a law which has restrospective effect, the theory is that the law was actually in operation in the past and if the provision of the Acts and general in their operation, there can be no challenge to them on the ground of discrimination or unfairness merely because of their restrospective effect. (Para 362) Per Beg. J. – The amendments made by Section 7 and 8 read with Section 10 of the Act 40 of 1975 are valid. They cannot be challenged on ground of misuse of power by those who hold the reins of Government the presumption is that a bona fide use will be made of this power lodged in such responsible hands. If such powers are even exercised in a mala fide manner. It is the particular exercise of the power that can be questioned and struck down. The provision does not become invalid merely because it could be abused as practically any provision of law can be by those who may want to do so. (Para 436) The possibility of misuse of a power given by a statute cannot invalidate the provisions conferring the power. The occasion to complain can only arise when there is such alleged misuse even the possibility of such misuse of this power by so responsible an official as the Election Commissioner cannot be easily conceived of. (Case Law referred) (Para 485)