Legislature to take away and interfere with these exclusive functions of the judiciary by any legislation amending the law governing the election adjudicated by the judiciary. Second, the insertion of these Acts in the Ninth Schedule will not confer any immunity on the legislative measure if basic features of the Constitution are damaged or destroyed on the ground that the provisions contravene Part III of the Constitution. Third, any provision in the legislative measures which has the effect of bringing about unfairness between different rival candidates in the matter of election is discriminatory and it not only contravenes Article 14 but also violates the implied limitation on legislative power relating to free and fair elections. Fourth any amendment of the law with retrospective operation governing an election which has already been held necessary introduces an element of unfairness and brings about a denial of equality amount rival candidate. Fifth, the deeming clause introduced in the 1951 Act by Sections 6(b) and 8 (a) and (b) of the Amendment Act, 1975 and the device of conclusive proof adopted by Section 8 (c) in the Amendment Act, 1975 are unconstitutional encroachments on judicial power. Sixth power conferred by an enactment including a constitutional enactment has to so exercised as to give effect to the guiding principles of the basic norms of that legislation and not so as to military against those guiding principles or basic norms. 126. The definition of "candidate is amended by the Amendment Act 1975. The contentions of the respondent on the amendment of the definition of candidate are these. The expression returned candidate’’ is descriptive of the person and the corrupt practices mentioned in Section 123 of the 1951 Act in relation to candidate will not be confined to corrupt practices committed with reference to the definition of ‘‘candidate’’. Corrupt practices alleged in relation to candidates will be relatable to any period and will not be confined to corrupt practices alleged between the date of nomination and the date of election. If corrupt practices are committed by candidates who eventually become returned candidates such corrupt practices will be offences within meaning of Section 123 of the 1951 Act without any reference to the time of commission. 127. Counsel on behalf of the respondent also contended as follows. The basis of fair and free elections is that the election of a candidate will be avoided any corrupt practice has been committed by the candidate by or with the knowledge and consent of that candidate. The acts of a candidate may be either enter to the date of nomination or it may be subsequent to the date of nomination. Therefore, the Amendment Act, 1975 destroys and damages free and fair election by allowing candidates to commit corrupt practices prior to the date of nomination. 128. The Amendment Act, 1975 is also challenged as falling with in the vice of delegated legislation by the amendments inserted as Explanation 3 to Section 77 of the 1951 Act and the insertion of the proviso to Section 123 (7) of 1951 Act. These provisions have already been noticed. Broadly stated expenditure incurred by persons in Government service will not be deemed to be for furtherance of the candidate’s election. The contentions are these. No