that the totality of rights cannot claim the status of fundamental rights and freedom of speech on which reliance was placed is a part of the privileges falling under Article 105. The reason is that freedom from arrest under a detention order is not recognised as a privilege which can be claimed by Members of House of Commons in England. This Court then posed the question that if a claim for freedom from arrest by a detention order could not be sustained under the privileges of the Members of Parliament whether it could be sustained on the ground that it is a constitutional right which could not be contravened. The statement in May's Parliamnetary Practice 7th Ed. at p. 78 which is to be found in the 18th Edition at p.100 that the privilege of freedom from arrest is limited to civil causes, and has not been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation was accepted as the basis of two propositions laid down in nambiar's case (supra). First Articles 79, 85, 86, 100 and 105 cannot be construed to confer any right as such on individual Members or impose any obligation on them. It is not as if a Member of Parliament is bound to attend the session or is under an obligation to be present in the House when the President addresses it. The context in which these Articles appear shows that the subject matter of these Articles is not the individual rights of the Members of Parliament, but they refer to the right of the President to issue a summons for the ensuing session of Parliament or to address the House or Houses. Second, the freedom of speech to which Article 105 refers would be available to a Member of Parliament when he attends the session of the Parliament. If the order of detention validity prevents him from attending a session of Parliament no occasion arises for the exercise of the right of freedom of speach and no complaint can be made that the said right has been invalidly invaded. 87. The second ground of challenge that there was no valid session of the House cannot be accepted for the reasons given above. It has also to be stated that it is not open to the respondent to challenge the orders of detention collaterally. The principle is that what is directly forbidden cannot be indirectly achieved. 88. The High Court found first that the appellant has to be regarded as a candidate from 29th December, 1970 as she held herself out on that date as a candidate. The second finding is that the appellant obtained and procured the assistance of Yashpal Kapur for the furtherance of her election prospects when Yashpal Kapur was serving as a Gazetted Officer within the Government of India. The High Court found that Yashpal Kapur's resignation from his service though submitted on 13th January, 1971 did not become effective until 25th January, 1971 when it was notified. The further finding by the High Court is that Yashpal Kapur under the instructions of the appellant delivered election speech on 7th January, 1971 at Munshi Ganj and another speech at Kalan on 19th January 1971. The third finding by the High Court is that the appellant and her election agent Yashpal Kapur procured and obtained the assistance of the officers of the State Government, particularly, the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and the Engineer to Hydel Department for the construction of rostrums and arrangement for supply of power for loudspeakers at meetings addressed by the appellant on Ist February, 1971 and 25th February, 1971 and further that the said assistance was for furtherance of the prospects of election of the appellant. The High Court found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123 (7) of the 1951 Act. The High Court declared the election of the