which went into the matter has been divested of its jurisdiction with retrospective effect and at the same time no jurisdiction has been vested in any other forum to go into the matter. The present is not a case of change of forum. It is on the contrary, one of the abolition of forum. As such, the question as to whether the office of Prime Minister constitutes a class by itself loses much of its significance in the context of the controversy with which we are concerned. 210. It has been argued in support of the constitutional validity of clause (4) that as a result of this amendment, the validity of one election has been preserved. Since the basic structure of the Constitution, according to the submission, continues to be the same, clause (4) cannot be said to be an impermissible piece of constitutional amendment. The argument has a seeming plausibility about it but a deeper reflection would show that it is vitiated by a basic fallacy. Law normally connotes a rule or norm which is of general application. It may apply to all the persons or class of persons or even individuals of a particular description. Law prescribes the abstract principles by the application of which individual cases are decided. Law, however, is not what Blackstone called “a sentence”. According to Roscoe Pound, law, as distinguished from laws, is the system of authoritative materials for grounding or guiding judicial and administrative action recognized or establisned in a politically organized society (see page 106. Jurisprudence. Vol. III). Law is not the same as judgement, Law lays down the norm in abstract terms with a coercive power and sanction against those guilty of violating the norm, while judgment represents the decision arrived at by the application of law to the concrete facts of a case. Constitutional law relates to the various organs of a State; it deals with the structure of the government, the extent of distribution of its powers and the modes and principles of its operation. The Constitution of India is so detailed that some of the matters which in a brief constitution like that of the United States of America are dealt with by statutes form the subject-matter of various Articles of our Constitution. There is, however, in a constitutional law, as there is in the very idea of law, some element of generality or general application. It also carries with it a concept of its applicability in future to situations which may arise in that context. If there is amendment of some provision of the Constitution and the amendment deals with matters which constitute constitutional law in the normally accepted sense, the court while deciding the question of the validity of the amendment would have to find out in view of the majority opinion in Keshavananda Bharti's case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (supra), as to whether the amendment affects the basic structure of the Constitution. The constitutional amendment contained in clause (4) with which we are concerned in the present case is, however, of an altogether different nature. Its avowed object is to confer validity on the election of the appellant to the Lok Sabha in 1971 after that election had been declared to be void by the High Court and an appeal against the judgment of the High Court was pending in this Court. In spite of our query, we were not referred to any precedent of a similar amendment of any Constitution of the world. The uniqueness of the impugned constitutional amendment would not, however,