human resources of these companies were drawn upon by the respondent. This Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit was incurred by the respondent. In Megh Raj Patodia’s case (supra) there is an observation that expenses incurred by a political party to advance the prospects of the candidates put up by it without more do not fall within Section 77 of the 1951 Act. The words ‘‘something more’’ were construed by counsel for the respondent to mean that if a candidate takes advantage of expenditure incurred or authorised by a political party such expenses could be attributed to a candidate. The Amendment Act, 1974 has added Explanation 1 to Section 77 of the 1951 Act which shows that expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by the political party shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate or his election agent. 121. Allegations that election expenses are incurred or authorised by a candidate or his agent will have to be proved. Authorisation means acceptance of the responsibility. Authorisation must precede the expenditure. Authorisation means reimbursement by the candidate or election agent of the person who has been authorised by the candidate or by the election agent of the candidate to spend or incur. In order to constitute authorisation the effect must be that the authority must carry with it the right of reimbursement. 122. For the foregoing reasons the contentions of the respondent that the appellant exceeded the limit of election expenses fail. 123. The respondent contended that the amendments by the Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1975 are constitutionally invalid. It may be stated here that the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 in Section 5 thereof enacts that in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution after entry 86, inter alias, the following Entries shall be inserted, namely:‘‘87. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Central Act 43 of 1951); the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Central Act 58 of 1974); and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Central Act 40 of 1975)." 124. The contention of the respondent is that when the power of amending the Constitution cannot be exercised to damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution or the essential elements of the basic structure or framework thereof the limitations on the exercise of legislative power will arise not only from the express limitations contained in the Constitution, but also from necessary implication either under Articles or even in the Preamble of the Constitution. This contention on behalf of the respondent is expanded to mean that if the democrat way of life through Parliamentary institutions based on free and fair elections is a basic feature which cannot be destroyed or damaged by amendment of the Constitution, it cannot similarly be destroyed or damaged by any legislative measure. 125. These reasons were submitted by the respondent, First, the power to resolve doubts and disputes about the validity of elections of Parliament and State Legislatures has been vested by the Constitution in the judicial organ competent to decide election petitions and therefore it is not open to the