not contemplate existence of any function which may qua the citizens be designated as political and orders made in exercise where of are not liable to be tested for their validity before the lawfully constituted courts : Rai Sahib Ram jaway Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225= (AIR 1955SC 549); Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana ((1964) 5 SCR 294) = (AIR 1964 SC 648); and Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd Edn. Vol 7, Article 409, at p. 192. 632. Learned Solicitor General also contended that we were passing through critical times when a state of Emergency had been declared. He submitted that the decision of the constituent authorities, in excluding a particular case from the jurisdiction of this Court, should be treated as an exercise of very special power under very unusual conditions in which internal and external dangers, with which the country was surrounded, required that the position of the Prime Minister should be declared unequivocally unassaible so that the need for further examination of the question of her election to Parliament may not be raised anywhere else. This seems to be another form in which "political question" argument could be and was addressed to us. Undoubtedly, clause (4) of Article 329 A could be said to have a political objective in the context in which it was introduced and we could perhaps, take judical notice of this context. Even if it was possible to go beyond the statement of objects and reasons and to hold that clause (4) of Article 329A is there essentially for demonstrating the strong position of the Government and of the Prime Minister of this country to all inside and outside the country so as to inspire the necessary confidence in and give the necessary political and legal strength to the Government to enable it to go forward boldly to deal with internal economic and law order problems and international questions. Yet, I fail to see why this could make it necessary to exclude that jurisdiction of this Court so as to prevent it from considering a case which would have been over much sooner if we had not been confronted with difficulties, at the very outset in examining the merits of the case. Speaking for myself. I fail to see what danger to the country could arise or how national interests could be jeopardised by a consideration and a decision by this Court of such a good case as I find that the Prime Minister of this country had on facts and law. Nevertheless I am prepared to concede that there may be and was some very useful political objective to be served by demonstrating the strength and ability of the Government of face the difficulties with which is had been conformed. It that be so we can certainly say that clause (4) of Article 329A had a political objective and utility which has been served. And, if that was the real object behind its enactment, it could not be really to injure the interests of minority political parties or groups which is what is contended for on behalf of the election petitioner. I think that the context and the political considerations placed before us could be relevant in understanding the real meaning of clause (4) of Article 329A of the Constitution. 633. It is a well established canon of interpretation that, out of two possible interpretations of a provision, one which prevents it from becoming unconstitutional should be preferred if this is possible- ut res magis valeat