election may be called in question under any such law as is referred to in clause (1). 8. The fourth clause which directly concerns the present appeals states that no law made by Parliament before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act. 1975 in so far as it relates to election petitions and matters connected therewith, shall apply or shall be deemed ever to have applied to or in relation to the election of any such person as is referred to in clause (1) to either House of Parliament and such election shall not be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on any ground on which such election could be declared to be void under any such law and notwithstanding any order made by any court before such commencement declaring such election to be void such election shall continue to be valid in all respects and any such order and any finding on which such order is based shall be and shall be deemed always to have been void and of no effect. 9. The fifth clause states that any appeal or cross appeal against any such order of any court as is referred to in clause (4) pending immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, before the Supreme Court shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of clause (4). 10. The sixth clause states that the provisions of this Article shall have effect notwithstanding any thing contained in the Constitution. 11. The third feature in the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act is that in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution after Entry 86 and before the Explanation several Entries Nos. 87 to 124 inclusive are inserted. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are mentioned in Entry 87. 12. The respondent contends that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1975 referred to as the Amendment Acts 1974 and 1975 do not enjoy constitutional immunity because these Acts destroy or damage basic structure or basic features. 13. In view of the challenge by the respondent to the constitutional validity of the Amendment Acts. 1974 and 1975 notice was given to the Attorney General. 14. The appeals were to be heard on 11 August, 1975. In view of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 which came into existence on 10 August, 1975 the hearing was adjourned till 25 August, 1975. 15. The constitutional validity of clause (4) of Article 329-A falls for consideration. Clause (4) of Article 329-A is challenged on two grounds. First, it destroys or damages the basic features or basic structure of the Constitution. Reliance is placed in support of the contention on the majority view of 7 learned Judges in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadanagalvaru v. State of Kerala, 1973 Sup SCR 1 - (AIR 1973 Sc 1461).