altogether to try the case. No such attempts at reading it down have, however, been made by learned Counsel supporting the validity of Article 329A (4). It is not unlikely that Article 329A (4) was based on the misapprehension that the High Court's judgment may be legally correct or that there was possibility, even for a case so ill founded in fact and in law as the one put forward on behalf of the election-petitioner, to succeed in this Court if it had succeeded in the High Court. We cannot indulge in guess work on these matters. In any case, no useful purpose will be served now by our declaring anything beyond that clause 329A (4) does not so operate as to bar the jurisdiction of this Court to go into and determine the merits of the appeals before us by applying the Act of 1951. Even if we were to consider matters of expendiency and national interest, as we should in appropriate cases, it does not appear to me to be either expedient or in conformity with national interests to leave the matter in doubt whether the judgment under appeal before us could or could not legally stand on its own legs under the unamended law. 637. For the reasons given above. I declare that Article 329A (4) does not stand in the way of the consideration of the appeals before us on merits under the Act of 1951 or the validity of the amendment's of the Act. On a consideration of the merits of Appeals Nos. 887 and 909 of 1975, I have come to the conclusion, as indicated above, that Appeal No. 887 must be allowed and the Cross Appeal No. 909 of 1975 must fail. The result is that the judgment and orders passed by the learned Judge of the Allahabd High Court on the election case are set aside, and in such conformity with Article 329A clause (4) as is possible for us. I also declare the judgment and the findings contained in it to be void and of no effect whatsoever. It is not necessary for me to add that the order of the learned Judge, holding the original respondent disqualified from occupying her office, disappears ipso facto and it neither has nor will be deemed over to have had any legal effect whatsoever. In the circumstances of the case, I think the parties should bear their own costs throughout. Chandrachud, J.: – 638. The Election Petition out of which these appeals arise involved the question of the validity of the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi to the Lok Sabha. In the General Parliamentary Elections of 1971, she was declared as the successful candidate from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. She won the election by a margin of 1.11.810 votes over her nearest rival, Shri Raj Narain. 639. Shri Raj Narain who was sponsored by the Samyukta Socialist Party, filed an election petition under Section 80 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to challenge the election of the successful candidate. Originally the challenge was founded on numerous grounds but during the trail of the petition in the High Court of Allahabad, the challenge was limited to seven grounds.