the Ordinance by way of an Explanation to Section 77 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It expressly excepted from its operation decisions of the Supreme Court voiding an election before the commencement of the Ordiance. Shri Amarnath Chawla feel outside the Ordinance. It also excepted similar decisions of High Courts provided that they had become final or unappealable. The Ordiance was replaced by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act. 58 of 1974, which was brought into force retrospectively from Ocober 19, 1974. 645. The defeated candidate filed Writ Petition 3761 of 1975 in the High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the Act of 1974. In view of his finding that the total amount of expenditure incurred or authorized by the successful candidate or her election agent together with the amount proved to have been incurred by the political Party or the State Government in connection with her election, did not exceed the prescribed limit, the learned Judge thought it unnecessary to inquire into the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the Act of 1974. He, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition. An appeal was filed to a Division Bench of the High Court from the aforesaid order but by consent of parties this Court decided to hear the points involved in the Writ Petition and in the appeal therefrom. 646. During the pendency of these cross-appeals the Parliament passed the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 40 of 1975, which came into force on August 6. 1975. This Act if valid virtually seals the controversy in the appeal filed in this Court by the successful candidate from the decision of the Allahabad High Court. It also takes care of a considerable gamut of the appeal filed in this court by the defeated candidate. It substitutes a new Section 8-A in the Representation of the People Act. 1951 empowering the President to decide whether a person found guilty of corrupt practice shall be disqualified and if so for what period. By Section 6, it amends Section 77 of the Act of 1951 making pre-nomination expenses a matter of irrelevant considertion. It declares that the expenditure incurred by a Government servant in the discharge of his official duty in connection with any arrangements or facilities and such arrangements or facilities shall not be deemed to be expenditure or assistance incurred or rendered for the furtherance of the election prospects of the candidate concerned. By Section 7, it re-defines a "candidate" to mean a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. By Section 8 it provides that no symbol allotted to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious or a national symbol. And it says, to the extent relevant, that the publication in the Official Gazette of the resignation of a Government servant shall be conclusive proof of the fact of resignation. If the effective date of the resignation is stated in the publication, it shall also be conclusive proof of the fact that the Government servant ceased to be in service with effect from the particular date. The amendments made by Section 6, 7 and 8 of the amending Act have retropective effect and expressly govern election appeals pending in this Court among other proceedings.