513. Counsel for both sides are agreed that, for the purposes of the case before us, we need not consider the constitutional validity of Clauses (1) to (3) of the newly introduced Article 329-A of the Constitution. I will, therefore, concern myself only with the constitutional validity of clause (4) of Article 329-A of the Constitution. 514. Learned Counsel of the election-petitioner contended that the constituent or amending power contained in Article 368 of our Constitution had been misused to achieve some purpose which was either outside the Article or which struck at the roots of the ‘‘basic structure’’ or ‘‘the essential features’’ of our Constitution. It was submitted that the amendment is invalid on an application of the tests laid down by a majority of the 13 Judges who indicated certain basic and inviolable principles of our Constitution in Kesavananda Bharati’s case AIR 1973 SC 1461 (supra). It was contended that the newly added Article 329-A (4) of the Constitution, far from constituting a Constitutional law, which alone could be made under Article 368, did not even satisfy the tests of law, in as much as it did not lay down any general rule applicable to all cases of a particular class but was really designed to decide one particular election case, which is now before us for hearing, in a particular way. According to learned Counsel, the amending bodies had, under the guise of an exercise of constituent power, really decided a particular election dispute arbitrarily without following the elementary principles of judicial procedure or applying any intelligible norms or principles of justice either as a Court of law would have done or as any body of persons entrusted with the duty to decide a matter justly or quasijudicially could possibly have done. The assumption underlying this argument was that setting aside the results of a judicially recorded judgment and order by declaring it void and the validation of an election held by a Court of law to be invalid necessarily involves the adoption of a judicial or a quasi-judicial procedure if the results are to appear just and not violative of the basic principles of natural justice which must be held to be parts of the Rule of law envisaged by our Constitution. What had been done by Clause (4) according to the learned Counsel for the election petitioner, was nothing short of lifting and placing the elections of the first four dignitaries of State outside the range of questionability before any authority whatsoever either in the past, present or future. As the only election out of these dignitaries still in dispute at the time of the passing of the 39th Amendment was the election of the Prime Minister to the House of the People, now under consideration in the appeals before us, it was suggested that all this was done, wholly and solely, though indirectly, with the object of validating the Prime Minister’s election as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1971. It sought to place the Prime Minister and the Speaker in a separate class by themselves as candidates at a general election for the membership of the House of Representatives. It was urged that there could be no reasonable or logical nexus between the alleged objects of such a classification and the results of the amendment made. It was urged that, in as much as a Prime Minister holds the pivotal position in the governance of the country, there could not be