determination of disputes relating to persons holding the office of Prime Minister on the Speaker. The changes effected by the Amendment Acts, 1974 and 1975 apply to all and there is no discrimination. Retrospective legislation is not by itself discrimination. The changes introduced to the 1951 Act apply to all. (Para 61) Clause 4 of Article 329-A in the present case in validating the election has passed a declaratory judgement and not a law. The legislative judgement in clause 4 is an exercise of judicial power. The constituent power can exercise judicial power but it has to apply law. The validation of the election is not by applying legal norms. Nor can it be said that the validation of election in Cl4. is by norms set up by the constituent power. (Paras 62, 63) Clause 5 in Article 329-A states that so appeal against any order of any court referred to in clause 4 pending, before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 before the Supreme Court, shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of clause 4. The appeal cannot be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of clause 4 inasmuch as the validation of the election cannot rest on clause 4. (Para 64) Per Beg. J : – As it is well established that it is the Constitution and not the constituent power which is Supreme in the sense that the Constitutionality of the Constitution cannot be called in question before the Court but the exercise of the constituent power can be, the court has to judge the validity of exercise of the constituent power by testing it on the anvil of constitutional provisions. According to the majority view in Keshvananda’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461), the Court can find the test primarily in the Preamble to the Constitution. The preamble furnishes the Yard-stick to be applied even to constitutional amendments. AIR 1973 sc 1461. Foll. (Paras 622, 623) According to Article 329 (b) an election dispute can only be resolved by an election petition before a forum provided by an ordinary enactment. In exercise of its powers under Article 329 (b) The Parliament had enacted the Representation of the People Act (1951). The procedure provided by the Act had the binding force of a constitutionally prescribed procedure. It could not be circumvented unless with reference to cases covered by Article 329-A (4), it had been first repealed. Only after such a repeal could any other forum or procedure be legally adopted. It could not be assumed by reason of Article 105 (3), that the prescribed forum had shifted to Parliament itself, and that Parliament, in exercise of its constituent function, had both legislated and adjudicated. (Paras 586, 587)