JUDGMENT : A.M. Shaffique, J. Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 amendment to the Representation of People Act, 1951. The amendment is as under: "1. (1) This Act may be called the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 10th day of July, 2013. 2. In the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 7, in clause (b), after the words "or Legislative Council of a State", the words "under the provisions of this Chapter, and on no other ground" shall be inserted. 3. In section 62 of the principal Act, after the proviso to sub-section (5), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector." 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times." 2. Learned counsel for the Election Commission submitted that similar challenge was made by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had upheld the amendment. It is inter alia held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court at paragraphs 29, 40 and 41 as under: "29. There can be no quibble with the proposition that an enacted law can be declared unconstitutional on the following grounds: (i) Lack of legislative competence; (ii) Violation of Part-III of the Constitution; and (iii) Arbitrariness of the law. xx xx xx 40. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is consistent with the principle of universal and equal suffrage and the presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty. 41. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. 41. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. In fact, by the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013, the Parliament has by explicit words overruled the intent which had been read by implication by the Courts into Section 62(5) and consequently, changed the basis of "Court's decision" and is, thus, valid.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid view expressed by the Delhi High Court, I do not think that anything further survives to be considered by this Court. I am persuaded to take the same opinion with reference to the present case also. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.