made to this Committee is in effect, addressed to the constituency through its accredited representative.” 458. The view of the learned Judge appears to me to run counter to the weight of authorities cited above. In any case, if there was any uncertainty at all in the law it has been removed by an amendment by Section 7 of Act No. 40 of 1975 so that Section 79 (b) reads as follows: “ 'Candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election.” 459. Learned Counsel for the election petitioner contended that this amendment, read with Section 10 of the Act 40 of 1975, would retrospectively alter the “rules of the game” and would be destructive of the concept of free and fair elections if it means that a person is only a candidate after he has been duly nominated and that he can indulge in any amount of corrupt practices until the day previous to his nomination. 460. Even if the present definition is a new one, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The concept contained in it is found in the English definition which lays down: (See: Halsbury's Laws of England — 3rd Edn. Vol. 14 p. 162): “.....a candidate in relation to a parliamentary election means a person who is elected to serve in Parliament at the election or a person who is nominated as a candidate at the election, or is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate on or after the day of the issue of the writ for the election.........” The English definition is wider but contains, as its first part the very concept found in our new definition of a “candidate.” 461. Corrupt practices of a candidate cannot go unpunished whether they are committed before or after he becomes a candidate when they amount to acts which come within the purview of electoral offences dealt with by Chapter 3 Sections 125, 126, 127, 127 (A) or Chapter 9-A of the Indian Penal Code. Offences, such as bribery, for purposes of either inducing persons to vote or not to vote or to stand or not to stand as candidates, undue influence and personation are all dealt with here. These should be sufficient deterrents against perversion of the electoral process by a prospective candidate, who wants to adopt corrupt and objectionable means for gaining success at the polls. 462. The amendment appears to me to be within the unquestionable powers of Parliament to legislate either prospectively or retrospectively with regard to election matters. I am unable to see how it is capable of being interpreted as an attack on free and fair elections which, according to the learned Counsel for the election-petitioner, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. I think it is important to bear in mind that Courts cannot take upon themselves the task of laying down what electoral laws should be. The law makers, assembled in Parliament are presumed to know and understand their business of making laws for the welfare and well-being of the mass of people of this country for the protection of democracy and of free and fair elections, in accordance with the needs of the democratic process