the act of an outside agency which might ultimately turn out to be not legal could affect the validity of the proceedings of the House of Parliament or could prevent that House from assembling and functioning. 183. The matter can also be looked at from another angle Gazette copies of the Election Laws Amendment Act, 1975 (Act 40 of 1975) and the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 have been produced before us. In the face of the publication in the Gazette of the above mentioned two Acts this Court must assume that those two Acts were duly passed. It may be pertinent in this context to refer to the position in the United States where it was laid down in the case of Marshall Field & Co. v. John M. Clark, (1892) 143 US 649 as under: “The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and by the President of the Senate in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses that such bill has passed Congress; and when the bill, thus attested receives the approval of the President, and is deposited in the public archieves, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress is complete and unimpeachable. An enrolled Act thus authenticated is sufficient evidence of itself that it passed Congress is complete and unimpeachable. An enrolled Act thus authenticated is sufficient evidence of itself that it passed Congress.” In the case of a constitutional amendment which requires ratification by the States, the position was stated by Brandeis J. in the case of Oscar Leser v. J. Mercer Garnett, (1921) 66 L ed 505 as follows: “The proclamation by the Secretary certified that, from official documents on file in the Department of State, it appeared that the proposed Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of thirty-six states, and that it 'has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.' As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” 184. I am, therefore, of the view that the constitutional validity of the Constitution Amendment Act and the 1975 Act amending the Representation of the People Act cannot be assailed on the ground that some members of Parliament were prevented because of their detention from attending and participating in the proceedings of the respective Houses of Parliament. 185. We may now deal with clause (4) of Aricle 329A which has been added by the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. It is necessary to clarify at the outset that we are concerned in the present case only with the constitutional validity of clause (4) and not with that of the other clauses of that article. I, therefore, express no opinion about the validity of the other clauses of Article 329A. Clause (4) consists of four parts: (i) No law made by Parliament before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 in so far as it relates to the