the British Parliament to circumvent Section 107 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which lays down: “Section 107, Method of questioning Parliamentary election. (1) No parliamentary election and no return of Parliament shall be questioned except by a petition complaining of an undue election or undue return (hereinafter referred to as parliamentary election petition) presented in accordance with this Part of this Act. (2) A petition complaining of no return shall be deemd to be a parliamentary election petition and the High Court may make such order thereon as they think expedient for compelling a return to be made or may allow the petition to be heard by an election court as provided with respect to ordinary election petitions.” 617. He also submitted that in none of the cases of validation, was any election dispute shewn to be pending. No judgment was actually set aside in contravention of the binding constitutionally prescribed procedure to decide such disputes. He submitted that, in the case of an election to a Parliamentary seat in this country, this could be done by Parliament itself only after first repealing the application of the 1951. Act and amending Article 329 (b) in such a way as to vest the power in itself to decide the dispute. 618. Learned Counsel, for the election petitioner relied upon the following statement in the American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn. Vol. 46. at page 318: “The general rule is that the legislature may not destroy, annual, set aside, vacate, reserve, modify, or impair the final judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, so as to take away private rights which have be come vested by the judgment. A statute attempting to do so has been held unconstitutional as an attempt on the part of the legislature to exercise judicial power, and as a violation of the constitutional guaranty of due process of law. The legislature is not only prohibited from reopening cases previously decided by the Courts, but is also forbidden to affect the inherent attributes of a judgment. That the statute is under the guise of an Act affecting remedies does not alter the rule". 619. On the other hand, learned Counsel supporting the validity of Article 329-A (4) relied on the following passage: “It is worthy of notice, however, that there are cases in which judgments requiring acts to be done in the future may validly be affected by subsequent legislation making illegal that which the judgment found to be legal, or making legal that which the judgment found to be illegal” They also pointd out: “With respect to legislative interference with a judgment, a distinction has been made between public and private rights under which distinction a statute may be valid even though it renders ineffective a judgment