213. As a result of the above. I strike down clause (4) of Article 329A on the ground that it violates the principle of free and fair elections which is an essential postulate of democracy and which in its turn is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution inasmuch as (1) it abolishes the forum without providing for another forum for going into the dispute relating to the validity of the election of the appellant and further prescribes that the said dispute shall not be governed by any election law and that the validity of the said election shall be absolute and not consequently be liable to be assailed, and (2) it extinguishes both the right and the remedy to challenge the validity of the aforesaid election. 214. We may now deal with Appeal No. 887 of 1975 filed by the appellant. So far as this appeal is concerned, it has been argued by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant that the grounds on which the election of the appellant has been declared by the High Court to be void no longer hold good in view of the amendment in the RP Act by Act 40 of 1975. As against that, Mr. Shanti Bhushan on behalf of the respondent has assailed the validity of Act 40 of 1975. In the alternative, Mr. Shanti Bhushan contends that even if the validity of Act 40 of 1975 were to be upheld, the grounds on which the election of the appellant has been declared to be void would still hold good. 215. The question as to whether Act 40 of 1975 is not vitiated by any constitutional infirmity would be dealt with by me subsequently. For the time being I would proceed upon the basis that the statutory amendment in the RP Act by Act 40 of 1975 is constitutionally valid. 216. Section 10 of Act 40 of 1975, which has been reproduced earlier, makes it clear, inter alia that the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of that Act shall have retrospective operation so as to apply to or in relation to any election held before the commencement of this Act to either House of Parliament in respect of which appeal from any order of any High court made in any election petition under the RP Act is pending before the Supreme Court immediately before such commencement. It is therefore, obvious that the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Act 40 of 1975 would be attracted to this case. One of the questions which actually arose for determination before the High Court was as to what was the date on which the appellant held herself out as a candidate. According to the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, she held herself out as a candidate from the Rae Bareli constituency on February 1, 1971 when she filed her nomination paper. As against that the case of the respondent was that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from that constituency on December 27, 1970 when the Lok Sabha was dissolved. The finding of the High Court is that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from the Rae Bareli constituency on December 29, 1970 when she addressed a Press conference. The question as to when the appellant held herself out as a candidate from the Rae Bareli constituency has now become purely academic in view of the change in the definition of the word “candidate” as given in clause (b) of Section 79 of the RP Act by Act 40 of 1975. According to the original definition. “unless the context otherwise requires, 'candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been