the People is pending such election petition shall abate upon such person being appointed as Prime Minister or, as the case may be being chosen to the office of the Speaker of the House of the People, but such election may be called in question under any such law as is referred to in clause (1). (4) 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 or has, before such commencement, been 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. (5) 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). (6) The provisions of this Article shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution.” 260. The respondent contended that clause (4) of Art 329-A (hereinafter referred to as 'clause (4)') is invalid for the reason that some of the basic structures of the Constitution have been damaged by its enactment. 261. The argument was that although the amending body could declare that the election of the appellant shall not be deemed to be void and the judgment of the High Court to be void on the basis that no law relating to election petition and matters connected therewith would apply to the election, yet the amending body could not have held the election to be valid as it did not ascertain the facts relating to the election and apply the relevant law to them. Counsel submitted that by its very nature, an election dispute in a democratic system of Government raises questions which can be decided only by the exercise of judicial power: that by retrospectively rendering the forum for investigation into the complaints regarding the validity of the election of the appellant coram non judice and by the amending body judging its validity without ascertaining the facts and applying the relevant law, the Amendment has fundamentally damaged an essential feature of the democratic structure of the Constitution namely, free and fair election. 262. Counsel also submitted that equality and rule of law are essential features of democracy; that clause (4) by dispensing with the application of the law relating to election petition and matters connected therewith to the appellant made an unreasonable classification among persons similarly situated with reference to the purpose of the law. 263. The further submission was, that separation of powers is a basic structure of the Constitution and that if it be supposed that the amending