be assumed to have withdrawn and then to have decided a particular case in a particular way by applying its own norms. It is presumed to know the law. Ostensibly, Article 329 A (4) is part of an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes found in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Only the declaration given at the end of it suggests that in the course of it the effect upon the case before us was considered and dealt with. 605. If Article 329A (4) constituted only a piece of purported law making the next question which deserves very serious consideration by us is whether such purported law making a not fully covered by the undoubted law making power of Parliament to make law prospectively as well as retrospectively, inter alia to get rid of the legal effect or result of a judgment considered erroneous by it or to retrospectively validate an election if considers valid whatever may be its reasons for reaching this conclusion. I will answer this question after considering the relevant case law cited on the subject. 606. A number of cases have been cited before us: some on retrospective validation of taxing provisions, by removing defects, others on removal of the basis of or grounds of decisions given by Courts making their judgments ineffective, others affecting the jurisdiction of Courts in cases pending, either in the original Courts or in Courts of Appeal so as to render procedings infructions, and still others curing legally defective appointment or elections. It is not necessary to discuss these cases separately and individually as the principles laid down there are well recognised. I will be content with mentioning the cases cited. They were M.P.V. Sundarararamier and Co. v. the State of Andh Pra, 1958 SCR 1422 = (AIR 1958 SC 468); Shree Vinod Kumar v. State of Him Pra, 1959 Supp 1 SCR 160 = (AIR 1959 SC 223); Jadab Singh v. the Himachal Pradesh Administration (1960) 3 SCR 755 = (AIR 1960 SC 1008); Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India; (1968) 3 SCR 41 = (AIR 1968 SC 1138) Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCR 530 = (AIR 1970 SC 564); Jagannath v. Authorised Officer. Land Reforms (1972) 1 SCR 1055 = (AIR 1972 SC 425); Khyerban Tea co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam, (1964) 5 SCR 975) = (AIR 1964 SC 925), Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow v. State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 450, Krishna Chandra Gangopadhyaya v. The Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1389, Pandia Nadar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCC 539 = (AIR 1974 SC 2044); State of Orissa v. B.K. Bose 1962 Supp 2 SCR 380 = (AIR 1962 SC 945). 607. Cases were also cited where rights having been altered during the pendency of procedings. Courts had to give effect to the rights as altered, and judgments already given on the strength of the previous law had ceased to have a binding force as res judicata between parties or had to be set aside where appeals against them were pending. These were: State of U.P. v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah, (1967) I SCR 362 = (AIR 1967 SC 661); Sh. Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. broach borough Municipality, (1970) 1 SCR 388 at p. 392 = (AIR 1970 SC 192 at p. 194); Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd, (1970) 3 SCR 745 = (AIR 1971 SC 57): Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad etc. v. New Shorock Spg. & Wvg co. Ltd., (1970) 1 SCR 288 = (AIR 1970 SC 1292); State of Tamil Nadu v. M.R.