disputes by a separate Tribunal or Court. (xiii) The 39th Amendment Act does not affect the structure of a Republican Democracy, assuming that the same is a basic feature of the Constitution. The validation of one election does not alter the character of the democracy : and (xiv) A Constitutional amendment need not necessarily relate to the structural organisation of the State. 658. Shri Jagannath Kaushal supported the arguments of Shri Sen by citing pragmatic illustrations. He gave interesting statistics showing that a very small percentage of election petitions succeed eventually which according to him is evidence that such petitions are used by defeated candidates as an instrument of oppression aganist successful candidates. Parliament, therefore, wanted to save high personages from such harassment. A law may benefit a single individual and may still be valid. According to Shri Kaushal, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court became a nullity by reason of that Court ceasing retrospectively to have jurisdiction over the dispute and a judgment which is a nullity need not be set aside. It can even be challenged in a collateral proceeding. 659. I thought it only fair to indicate broadly the line of approach adopted by the various learned counsel to the question as regards the validity of the 39th Amendment. It will serve no useful purpose to take up each one of the points for separate consideration and indeed many an argument is interrelated. It would be enough for my purpose to deal with what I consider to be points of fundamental importance, especially as my learned Brethren have dealt with the other points. 660. This Court has strictly adhered to the view that in Constitutional matters one must decide no more than is strictly necessary for an effective adjudication of the points arising in any case. By that test a numerically substantial part of the 39th Amendment has to be deferred for consideration to a future occasion.We are clearly not concerned in these appeals with the new Article 71 introduced by the 39th Amendment which deals with the election of the President and the Vice-President. We are concerned with the new Article 329-A but not with the whole of it. Clauses (1) to (3) of that article deal with future events and the validity of those clauses may perhaps be examined when those events come to happen. Clauses (4) to (6) of Article 329-A are the ones that are relevant for our purpose and I propose to address myself to the validity of those provisions. 661. Clause (4) of Article 329-A, which is the real focus of controversy may conveniently be split up as follows for understanding its true nature and effect : (i) The Laws made by Parliament prior to August 10, 1975 in so far as they relate to election petitions and matters connected therewith cease to apply to the Parliamentary election of Smt. Indira Gandhi which to place in 1971. (ii) Such Laws are repealed retrospectively in so far as they governed the aforesaid election with the result that they must never be deemed to have applied to that election. (iii) Such an election cannot be declared to be void on any of the grounds on which it could have been declared to be void under the