High Court shall be deemed to have had no jurisdiction to decide the election petition challenging the election of the appellant. The effect of part (i) of clause (4) is that the High Court was divested of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to the election of the appellant with a retrospective effect. The law under which the election of the appellant was declared to be void as a result of the amendment was also made inapplicable with retrospective effect to the dispute relating to the election of the appellant. The resultant effect of the amendment thus was that the order by which the election of the appellant was declared to be void and the finding on which such order was based were rendered to be void and of no effect. 189. Another aspect of part (iv) of clause (4) relates to the question as to whether it is open to the constituent authority to declare an order and a finding of the High Court to be void and of no effect or whether such a declaration can be made only either in separate judicial proceedings or in proceedings before a higher court. 190. A declaration that an order made by a court of law is void is normally part of the judicial function and is not a legislative function Although there is in the Constitution of India no rigid separation of powers by and large the spheres of judicial function and legislative function have been demarcated and it is not permisible for the legislature to encroach upon the judicial sphere. It has accordingly been held that a legislature while it is entitled to change with retrospective effect the law which formed the basis of the judicial decision it is not permissible to the legislature to declare the judgement of the court to be void or not binding (see Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, (1970) 1 SCR 388 (at page 392) = (AIR 1970 SC 192 Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., (1970) 3 SCR 745 (at page 751) = (AIR 1971 SC 57) Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad etc. v. New Shorock Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. etc., (1971) 1 SCR 288 = (AIR 1970 SC 1292) and State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Rayappa Gounder, AIR 1971 SC 231). 191. The position as it prevails in the United States, where guarantee of due process of law is in operation, is given on pages 318-19 of Vol. 46 of the American Jurisprudence 2d as under. “The general rule is that the legislature may not destroy, annul, set aside, vacate, reverse, modify, or impair the final judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction, so as to take away private rights which have become vested by the judgement. A stature 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 guarantee 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 judgement. That the statute is under the guise of an act affecting remedies does not alter the rule. 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