695. These Acts effectively put an end to the two appeals before us for they answer the totality of the objections which were raised by Shri Raj Narain against the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi. The basis of the findings on which the High Court held against the successful candidate is removed by Act 40 of 1975 retrospectively. Were the law as it is under the amendments introduced by that Act, the High Court could not have held that the election is vitiated by the two particular corrupt practices. In regard to the crossappeal filed by Sri Raj Narain, Shri Shanti Bhushan thought that a part of it escapes through the crevices in the Act but I see no substance in that contention either. I would like to add that the findings recorded by the High Court in favour of Smt. Indira Gandhi are amply borne out by the evidence to which our attention was drawn briefly by the learned counsel for the parties. The expenses incurred by the political party together with the expenses incurred by her are not shown to exceed the prescribed ceiling. Apart from that, Act 58 of 1974 makes that issue academic. 696. Finally, there is no merit in the contention that the constitutional amendment is bad because it was passed when some members of the Parliament were in detention. The legality of the detention orders cannot be canvassed in these appeals collaterally. And from a practical point of view, the presence of 21 members of the Lok Sabha and 10 members of the Rajya Sabha who were in detention could not have made a difference to the passing of the Amendment. 697. In the result. I hold that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329-A are unconstitutional and therefore void. But for reasons aforesaid I allow Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 and dismiss Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975. There will be no order as to costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975, Allowed; Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975, Dismissed.