Act and the statutory amendment Act were passed by the requisite majority. It is not the case of the respondent that the number of the detained members of Parliament was so large, that if they had voted against the impugned measures, the measures would not have been passed. Indeed, according to the affidavit filed during the course of arguments, the number of members of the Lok Sabha who were detained was 21 and of the Rajya Sabha the number was 10. An amendment of the Constitution under Article 368, it is noteworthy, has apart from the requirement in certain cases of ratification by the State legislatures, to be passed in each House of Parliament by majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. According to clause (1) of Article 100 of the Constitution, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions at any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the Houses shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other than the Speaker or person acting as Chairman or Speaker. The Chairman or Speaker, or person acting as such, shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. Clause (2) of that article provides that either House of Parliament shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof, and any proceedings in Parliament shall be valid notwithstanding that it is discovered sub-sequently that some person who was not entitled so to do sat or voted or otherwise took part in the proceedings. Further, it is provided in clause (1) of Article 122 that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. All this would show that the framers of the Constitution were anxious to ensure that the procedural irregularities and other grounds like those mentioned in clause (2) of Article 100 should not vitiate the validity of proceedings of Parliament and that it would not be permissible to call in question those proceedings on such grounds. The observations on page 456 in the case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 = (AIR 1965 SC 745) that if the impugned proceedings of a legislature are illegal and unconstitutional and not merely irregular, the same can be scrutinised in a court of law do not, in my opinion warrant the inference that a court can hold the proceedings of a legislature to be not valid and constitutional by going into the question as to whether the detention of any member who was prevented from being present in the siting of the legislature on account of his detention was or was not in accordance with law. The acceptance of the above submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan would necessarily result in a situation that whenever a law is made by Parliament, it would be open to a person affected by that law to question the validity of that law by asking the court to examine the validity of detention of each of the members of Parliament who were under detention at the time the said law was passed even though those members do not themselves assail the validity of their detention. It is plain that it would not be possible for the court in such collateral proceedings to record a finding about the validity of the detention of the members because the full material having a bearing on the validity of the detention would normally be, apart from the authority passing the order for detention, only