legislature to classify to establish equality. When Articles 31-A and 31-B eliminated judicial review the meaning was not that the legislature would go on discriminating. The task of classification can be left to the legislature. It is the very nature of legislation that classification must be in public interest. The amending body has excluded judicial review in Article 31-A, 31-B and 31-C. 54. Exclusion of the operation of the equality principle from some fields is constitutionally possible. Article 33 excludes judicial review in matters relating to the Armed Forces. Article 262 (2) excludes jurisdiction of courts in water disputes. 55. Decisions in election disputes may be made by the legislature itself or may be made by courts or tribunals on behalf of the legislature or may be made by courts and tribunals on their own exercising judicial functions. The concept of free and fair election is worked out by the Representation of the People Act. The Act provides a definition of "corrupt practice" for the guidance of the court. In making the law the legislature acts on the concept of free and fair election. In any legislation relating to the validity of elections the concept of free and fair elections is an important consideration. In the process of election the concept of free and fair election is worked out by formulating the principles of franchise, and the free exercise of franchise. In cases of disputes as to election, the concept of free and fair election means that disputes are fairly and justly decided. Electoral offences are statutory ones. It is not possible to hold that the concept of free and fair election is a basic structure, as contended for by the respondent. Some people may advocate universal franchise. Some people may advocate proportional representation. Some people may advocate educational qualifications for voters. Some people may advocate property qualifications for voters. Instances can be multiplied on divergence of views in regard to qualifications for voters, qualifications of members, forms of corrupt practices. That is why there is law relating to and regulating elections. 56. Clause (4) in Article 329-A has done four things. First, it has wiped out not merely the judgment but also the election petition and the law relating thereto. Secondly, it has deprived the right to raise a dispute about the validity of the election by not having provided an other forum. Third there is no judgment to deal with and no right or dispute to adjudicate upon. Fourth, the constituent power of its own legislative judgment has validated the election. 57. At the outset it has to be noticed that constituent power is not the same as ordinary law making power. On behalf of the appelant it was rightly contended that if any amendment of Article 105 of the Constitution had to be made, it had to be made by amendment of the Constitution. The matter does not rest there. 58. If no law prior to the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act will apply to election petitions or matters connected therewith the result is that there is not only no forum for adjudication of election disputes but that there is also no election petition in the eye of law. The insurmountable difficulty is in regard to the process and result of validating the election by clause (4). Two answers were given on behalf of the appellant. One was that the validation of the election is itself the law. The other has that the constituent power applied its own norms to the election petition. Both the answers are unacceptable. If the election petition itself did not have any existence in law there was no petition which could be looked into by the constituent power. If there was no petition to look into it is difficult to comprehend as to what norms where applied to the election dispute. The dispute has to be seen. The dispute has to be adjucated upon.