59. Clause (4) suffers from these infirmities. First the forum might be changed but another forum has to be created. If the constituent power became itself the forum to decide the disputes the constituent power by repealing the law in relatin to election petitions and matters connected therewith did not have any petition to seize upon to deal with the same. Secondly, any decision is to be made in accordance with law. Parliament has power to create law and apply the same. In the present case, the constituent power did not have any law to apply to the case because the previous law did not apply and no other law was applied by clause (4) . The validation of the election in the present case is, therefore, notby applying any law and it, therefore, offends Rule of Law. 60. It is true that no express mention is made in our Constitution of vesting in the judiciary the judicial power as is to be found in the American Constitution. But a division of the three main functions of Government is recognised in our Constitution Judicial power in the sense of the judicial power of the State is vested in the Judiciary. Similarly, the executive and the Legislature are vested with powers in their spheres. Judicial power has lain in the hands of the Judiciary prior to the Constitution and also since the Constitution. It is not the intention that the powers of the Judiciary should be passed to or be shared by the Executive or the Legislature or that the powers of the Legislature or the Executive should pass to or be shared by the Judiciary. 61. The constituent power is sovereign. Law making power is subject to the Constitution Parliament may create forum to hear election disputes Parliament may itself hear election deputes. Whichever body will hear election disputes will have to apply norm Norms are legal standards. There is no discrimination if classification on rational basis is made for determination of disputes relating to persons holding the office of Prime Ministr or the Speaker. The changes effected by the Amendment Acts 1974 and 1975 apply to all and there is no discrimination. Retrospective legislation is not by itself discrimination the changes intoduced to 1951 Act apply to all. 62. Clause 4 of Article 329-A in the present case the election has passed a declaratory judgment and not a law. The legislative judgment in Clasue 4 is an exersice of judicial power. The constituent power can exercise judicial power but it has to apply law. 63. The validation of the election is not by applying legal norms Nor can it be said that the validation of election in Clause 4 is by norms set up by the constituent power. 64. Clause 5 in Article 329-A states that an appeal against any order of any court referred to in Clause 4 pending, before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, before the Supreme Court, shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of Clause 4. The appeal cannot be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of Clause 4 inasmuch as the validation of the election cannot rest on Clause 4. 65. In view of the conclusion that the appeal cannot be disposed of in conformity with clause 4 it is necessary to hear the appeals on other grounds in accordance with the provisions of the 1951 Act and the Amendment Acts 1974 and 1975. 66. The second contention of the respondent is that the session of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha is invalid for these reasons. If the Executive illegally and