"122 (1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business or for maintaining order in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers." 509. What is alleged by the election petitoner is that the opposition Member of Parliament who had been detained under the preventive detention laws were entitled to get notice of the proposed enactment and the 39th Amendment, so as to be present "in Parliament", to oppose these changes in the law. I am afraid, such an objection is directly covered by the terms of Article 122 which debars every Court from examining the propriety of proceedings "in Parliament". If any privileges of Members of Parliament were involved, it was open to them to have the question raised "in Parliament". There is no provision of the Constitution which has been pointed out to us providing for any notice to each Member of Parliament. That, I think, is also a matter completely covered by Article 122 of the Constitution. All that this Court can look into in appropriate cases is whether the procedure which amounts to legislation or, in the case of a constitutional amendment, which is prescribed by Article 368 of the Constitution, was gone through at all. As a proof of that, however, it will accept, as conclusive evidence, a certificate of the Speaker that a Bill has been duly passed. (See State of Bihar v. Kameshwar, AIR 1952 SC 252 at p. 266). 510. Again, this Court has held, in Sharma v. Sri Krishna AIR 1960 SC 1186 at p. 1189 that a notice issued by the Speaker of a Legislature for the breach of its privilege cannot be questioned on the ground that the rules of procedure relating to proceedings for breach of privilege have not been observed. All these are internal matters of procedure which the Houses of Parliament themselves regulate. 511. As regards the validity of the detentions of the Members of Parliament, that cannot be questioned automatically or on the bare statement by counsel that certain Members of Parliament are illegally detained with some ulterior object. The enforcement of fundamental rights is regulated by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution and the suspension of remedies under these Articles is also governed by appropriate consitutional provisions. Their legality and regularity cannot be collaterally assailed by mere assertions made by Counsel before us. I, therefore, overrule these objections to the validity of the amendements and the 39th Amendment as we cannot even entertain them in this manner in these proceedings. 512. I will now turn to the validity of clause (4) of Article 329-A sought to be added by Section 4 of the 39 Amendment. I will quote the whole of Section 4 as some argument was advanced on the context in which clause (4) of Article 329-A occurs. Section 4 reads as follows :