States v. Lee. (1883). 106 US 196 at p. 220 Samuel Miller J. observed that “no man is so high that he is above the law.... All.... officers are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.” Although the above observations were made in the context of the US Constitution, they, in my opinion, hold equally good in the context of our Constitution. 204. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the grounds on account of which the election of the appellant had been held to be void by the High Court were of a technical nature. I need not express any opinion about this aspect of the matter at this stage but, assuming it to be so, I find that clause (4) of Article 329A is so worded that (however serious may be the malpractices vitiating the election of the Speaker or the Prime Minister, the effect of clause (4) is that the said election would have to be treated as valid. I cannot accede to the submission that in construing clause (4) we should take into account the facts of the appellant's case. This is contrary to all accepted norms of construction. If a clause of a Constitution or statutory provision is widely worded, the width of its ambit cannot be circumscribed by taking into account the facts of an individual case to which it applies. As already mentioned, cl. (4) deals with the past election not merely of the Prime Minister but also of the Speaker. So far as the election of the Speaker is concerned, we do not know as to whether the same was ever challenged and, if so, on what grounds, and whether such a dispute is still pending. 205. Another argument advanced in support of the validity of the amendment is that we should take it that the constituent authority constituted itself to be the forum for deciding the dispute relating to the validity of the election of the appellant and after considering the facts of the case, declared the election of the appellant to be valid. There is however, nothing before us as to indicate that the constituent authority went into the material which had been adduced before the High Court relating to the validity of the election of the appellant and after considering that material held the election of the appellant to be valid. Indeed, the statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Bill makes no mention of this thing. In any case, the vice of clause (4) would still lie in the fact that the election of the appellant was declared to be valid on the basis that it was not to be governed by any law for settlement of election disputes. Although the provisions of a constitutional amendment should be construed in fair and liberal spirit, such liberal spirit should not be carried by the court to the extent of discovering the application of a dormant and latent law in the declaration of the validity of an election even though there is not even a remote indication of such a law in the impugned provision. Rule of law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision in the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. 206. The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The effect of impugned clause (4) is to take away both the right and the remedy to