denude Parliament and State Legislatures of the power of legislation and deprive them of leaving down legislative policies. This will be encroachment on the separation of powers. 137. The Constitutional validity of a statute depends entirely on the existence of the legislative power and the express provision in Article 13. Apart from the limitation the legislature is not subject to any other prohibition. The amendments made to the 1951 Act by the Amendment Acts, 1974 and 1975 are to give effect to certain views expressed by this Court in preference to certain views departed from or otherwise to clarify the original intention. It is within the powers of Parliament to frame laws with regard to elections. Parliament has power to enumerate and define election expenses Parliament has power to lay down limits on election expenses. Parliament has power to state whether certain expenses can be included or may be excluded from election expenses. Parliament has power to adopt conclusive proof with regard to matters of appointment resignation or termination of service. Parliament has power to state what can be considered to be office of profit. Parliament has power to state as to what will and what will not constitute corrupt practice. Parliament has power to enact what will be the ground for disqualification. Parliament has power to define ‘‘candidate’’ Parliament has power to state what symbols will be allotted to candidates at election. These are all legislative policies. 138. The conclusive evidence or conclusive proof clause is an accepted legislative measure. Similarly, giving retrospective effect to legislative amendment is accepted to be valid exercise of legislative power. The well known pattern of all Validation Acts by which the basis of judgments or orders of competent Courts and Tribunals is changed and the judgements and orders are made in effective is to be found in M.P. V. Sudararamier & Co. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 1958 SCR 1422 = (AIR 1958 SC 468). The power of the legislature to pass a law includes a power to pass it respectively. An important illustration with reference to retrospective legislation in regard to election is the decision of this Court in Kanta Kathuria’s case (AIR 1970 Sc 694) (supra). Kanta Kathuria was disqualified by reason of holding an office of profit. First the Ordinance and later the Act was passed to nullify the decision of the High Court. The Ordinance as well as the Act stated that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court of Tribunal, the officer shall not be disqualified or shall be deemed never to have disqualified the holder thereof as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The rendering of a judgment ineffective by changing the basis by legislative enactment is not encroachment on judicial power because the legislation is within the competence of the legislature. 139. A contention was advanced that the legislative measure could not remove the disqualification retrospectively. Because the Constitution contemplates disqualification existing at certain time in accordance with law existing at that time. One of the views expressed in that case is that Article 191 recognises the power of the legislature of the State to declare by law that the holder of the office shall not be disqualified for being chosen as Member.