Power is reserved to the Legislature of the State to make the declaration. There is nothing in the Article to indicate that this declaration cannot be made with retrospective effect. The Act was held not to be ineffective in its retrospective operation on the ground that it is well recognised that Parliament and State Legislatures can make their laws operate retrospectively. Any law that can be made prospectively can be made with retrospective operation. It is said that certain kinds of laws cannot operate retrospectively. That is ex-post facto legislation. The present case does not fall within that category. Reference may be made to mays Parliamentary Practice 17th Ed. p. 515. Where instances are given of validation election by the British Parliament. 140 This Court in Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya v Lachhi Ram, (1955) 1 SCR 608 = (AIR 1955 SC 686) rejected the contention advanced there that Sections 123 (5) and 124 (5) of the 1951 Act interfered with a citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech. This Court said that these laws do not stop a man from speaking. They merely prescribe conditions which must be observed if one wants to enter Parliament. The right to stand as a candidate and to contest an election is not a common law right. It is a special right created by statute which can only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. The Fundamental Rights Chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by a statute relating to election. 141. The contention on behalf of the respondent that the amendment of the definition of ‘‘candidate’’ has damaged or destroyed basic structure is untenable. There is no basic structure or basic feature or basic framework with regard to the time when under the Election Laws a person is a candidate at the election. The contention of the respondent that the expression ‘‘returned candidate’’ is descriptive of the expression ‘‘candidate’’ will rob Section 100 of its content. The word ‘‘candidate’’ in relation to various electoral offences shows that he must be a candidate at the time of the offence. Time is necessary for fixing the offences. A significant distinction arises between the electoral offences under the 1951 Act and the offences under Sections 171-A to 171-I of the Indian Penal Code namely, that the 1951 Act uses the word ‘‘candidate’’ or his election agent with reference to various offences, whereas the Indian Penal Code does not use the word ‘‘candidate’’ in relation to commission of any offence. Any person may fall within the offences of bribery undue influence. Personation at elections within the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or for false statement or illegal payments in connection with any election or failure to keep election accounts. 142 The English representation of the People Act, 1949 called the English Act was relied on by the respondent to show that the word ‘‘candidate’’ in the 1951 Act should have the same meaning as in the English Act and there should be no limitation as to time in relation to a candidate. ‘‘Candidate’’ is defined in Section 103 of the English Act in relation to Parliamentary election to mean a person who is elected to serve in Parliament or a person who is nominated as a candidate at the election or is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate on or after the day of the issue of the writ for the