mentioned above shall be called in question, except before such authority or body and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by Parliament. It is made clear that the authority before which such election shall be called in question would not be the one as is referred to in clause (b) of Article 329. The law to be made by Parliament under clause (1) may provide for all other matters relating to doubts and disputes in relation to such election including the grounds on which such election may be questioned. The above law shall be subject to the provisions of clause (1) of Article 102 except sub-clause (e). The law made under clause (1) cannot, therefore, remove the dis-qualification for being chosen a member of either House of Parliament because of that person holding an office of profit or because of his unsoundness of mind or because of his being an undischarged insolvent or because of his being not a citizen of India, or because of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or because of his being under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State, as contemplated by sub-clauses (a) to (d) of clause (1) of Article 102 of the Constitution. The law made under clause (1) of Article 329-A would not, however, be subject to clause (e) of clause (1) of Article 102, according to which a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. According to clause (2) of Article 329-A, the validity of a law referred to in clause (1) and the decision of any authority or body under such law shall not be called in question in any court. Clause (3) provides for the abatement of an election petition which is pending in respect of the election of any person who is appointed as Prime Minister or chosen as Speaker of the House of the People during the pendency of the petition. It is further provided that he election of such person can be called in question under any such law as is referred to in clause (1) of Article 329-A. Clause (4) is the crucial clause for the present case. According to this clause, no law made by Parliament before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirtyninth Amendment) Act in so far as it relates to election petitions and matters connected therewith, shall apply or shall be deemed ever to have applied to or in relation to the election of any of the persons mentioned above to either House of Parliament. The remaining part of the clause deals with some further matters. It is provided in clause (4) that the election of the aforesaid person shall not be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on any ground on which such election could be declared to be void or has before such commencement, been declared to be void under any such law. It is further provided that notwithstanding any order made by any court before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act declaring such election to be void such election shall continue to be valid in all respects and any such order and any finding on which such order is based shall be and shall be deemed always to have been void and of no effect. Accoding to clause (5), any appeal or cross appeal against any such order as is referred to in clause (4) pending immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, before the Supreme Court shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of clause (4). Clause (6) states that the