640. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, M.L. Sinha, J., upheld the challenge on two grounds rejecting the other grounds of challenge. That explains the crossappeals. 641. The High Court held that the successful candidate was guilty of having committed two corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act : Firstly, she obtained the assistance of the Gazetted Officers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh for furthering her election prospects; and secondly, she obtained the assistance of Shri Yashpal Kapoor, a gazetted officer in the Government of India holding the post of Officer on Special Duty in the Prime Minister's Secretariat, for furthering the same purpose. Acting under Section 8-A of the Act the learned Judge declared that the successful candidate would stand disqualified for a period of six years from June 12, 1975 being the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by this part of the judgment, Smt. Indira Gandhi has filed appeal No. 887 of 1975. 642. The other five grounds of challenge were : (1) The successful candidate procured the assistance of the Armed Forces for arranging her flights by Air Force aeroplance and helicopters : (2) Her election agent Shri Yashpal Kapoor and other distributed clothes and liquor to induce the voters to vote for her : (3) She and her election agent made appeals to the religious symbol of cow and calf; (4) Her election agent and others procured vehicles for the free conveyance of voters to the polling stations : and (5) She and her election agent incurred or authorised expenditure in violation of Section 77(3) of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. These grounds having been rejected by the High Court, the defeated candidate has filed appeal No. 909 of 1975. The first two grounds were given up in appeal for the reason that the evidence on record was not likely to be accepted by this Court in proof thereof. 643. The defeated candidate did not lead evidence in the High Court to show that any part of the expenditure in excess of the permissible limit of Rs. 35,000 was incurred by the successful candidate or her election agent. His contention was that the expenditure incurred for her election by the political party which had sponsored her candidature, the Congress (R) was liable to be included in the expenses incurred or authorized by her. This contention was founded on a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on October 3, 1974 in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla, AIR 1975 SC 308. 644. On October 19, 1974 the President of India Promulgated 'The Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordiance, 1974' providing that "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 her 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 authorized by the candidate or by his election agent .................." This provision was added by