committed a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act? (7) Whether on the dates fixed for the poll voters were conveyed to the polling stations free of charge on vehicles hired and procured for the purpose by respondent No 1’s election agent Yashpal Kapur, or other persons with his consent as detailed in Schedule B to the Petition? (8) Whether the particulars given in paragraph 12 and Schedule B of the Petition are too vague and general to form a basis for allegations regarding a corrupt practice under Section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People Act? (9) Whether respondent No. 1 and her election agent Yashpal Kapur incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed by Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, read with Rule 90, as detailed in para 13 of the Petition? (10) Whether the petitioner had made a security deposit in accordance with the rules of the High Court as required by Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act? (11) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?’’ Subsequent to the framing of the above issues, the following three additional issues were framed in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in an appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court: ‘‘(1) Whether respondent No. 1 obtained and procured the assistance of Yashpal Kapur in furtherance of the prospects of her election while he was still a Gazetted Officer in the service of the Government of India? If so, from what date? (2) Whether respondent No. 1 held herself out as a candidate from any date prior to 1-2-1971 and, if so, from what date? (3) Whether Yashpal Kapur continued to be in the service of Government of India from and after 14-1-1971 or till which date? 163 During the pendency of the election petition in the High Court, Section 77 of the RP Act was amended by an Ordinance which was subsequently replaced by Act 58 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 amending Act or Act 58 of 1974). The said amending Act inserted two explanations at the end of sub-section (1) of S. 77 of the RP Act. The material part of the explanations reads as under: ‘‘Explanation 1 – Notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of any court to the contrary, any expenditure incurred or authorized in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be, and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or