the election held in February 1971 for the membership of the Lok Sabha or the House of the People against Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi the Prime Minister of India hereinafter referred to as 'the Original Respondent'). The election petitioner is the respondent in Appeal No. 887 of 1975 filed by the original respondent. He is the appellant in Appeal No. 909 of 1975 where the original respondent is the contesting respondent. 390. Before the election case instituted on 24-4-1971 could be decided by the trial Court an explanation was added to Section 77 (1) of the Act. It had some bearing on questions relating to the expenses incurred on the original respondent's election sought to be raised by the election petitioner but on findings of fact recorded by the trial Court It became immaterial for the merits of the case and would continue to be that so long as the election petitioner is unable to dislodge the trial Court's findings on election expenses. Other amendments were made by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 40 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1975') notified on 6-81975 after the decision of the case by the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 12-6-1975 and after the filing of the appeals before us. These amendments deal directly with several questions decided by the Allahabad High Court which were pending consideration before this Court Finally came the Constitution (Thirty-ninth) Amendment Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the '39th Amendment') gazetted on 10-8-1975 just before the commencement of the hearing of the appeals by this Court. 391. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the original respondent in his opening address that Section 4 of the 39th Amendment adding clause (4) to Article 329-A of the Constitution meant that Parliament itself acting in its constituent capacity had taken the case in hand and had after applying its own standards decided it in favour of the original respondent so that the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the merits of the case was ousted by clause (4) read with clause (5) and (6) sought to be added to Article 329-A of the Constitution. It was submitted by him that each one of the amendments of the Act was aimed at removing genuine uncertainties or doubts about what the law was so that it may be brought into the line with what it had been previously understood to be as declared by this Court or in any case with what Parliament correctly exercising its unquestionable law making powers thought that it should be. 392. The constantly recurring and vehemently pressed theme of the arguments of the learned counsel for the election petitioner was that the context; and the contents of the Acts of 1974 and 1975 and after that of Section 4 of the 39th Amendment clearly indicated that the whole object of the Acts of 1974 and 1975 and of the Constitutional amendment was an oblique one: to deprive the election petitioner of the remedies he had under the law against an election vitiated by corrupt practices and of the benefits of a decision of the High Court in his favour by taking away its grounds and then the jurisdiction of Courts which existed at the time of the 39th Amendment to deal with the case so that this case may not in any event terminate in favour of the election petitioner. It was repeatedly suggested by