https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169673 Retrospective election amendments were examined for whether they could validate a disputed election and displace an existing judicial determination. Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A were held unconstitutional because they destroyed judicial review, offended equality and the rule of law, and intruded into the judicial function. The retrospective changes to the definition of "candidate", corrupt practice under section 123(7), and election expenses under section 77 were treated as valid legislative changes, and on the amended law the findings of corrupt practice and excess expenditure did not survive. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 May 2017 15:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169673 Retrospective election amendments were examined for whether they could validate a disputed election and displace an existing judicial determination. Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A were held unconstitutional because they destroyed judicial review, offended equality and the rule of law, and intruded into the judicial function. The retrospective changes to the definition of "candidate", corrupt practice under section 123(7), and election expenses under section 77 were treated as valid legislative changes, and on the amended law the findings of corrupt practice and excess expenditure did not survive. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169673