fundamental right and is contained in Part III of the Constitution. It was also held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 does not constitute "Law" as mentioned in Art. 13. I also did not agree with the view taken in the case of Golaknath, (1967) 2 SCR 762=(AIR 1967 SC 1643) that there was a limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so as to abridge or take away the fundamental rights. I thereafter dealt with the scope of the power of amendment under Article 368 and the connotation of the word "amendment" and said in this context: "I am further of the opinion that amendment of the constitution necessarily contemplates that the constitution has not to be abrogated but only changes have to be made in it. The word 'amendment' postulates that the old constitution survives without loss of identity despite the change and continues even though it has been subjected to alterations. As a result of the amendment, the old Constitution cannot be destroyed and done away with it is retained though in the amended form. What then is meant by the retention of the old Constitution?It means the retention of the basic structure or framework of the old constitution. A mere retention of some provisions of the old constitution even though the basic structure or framework of the constitution has been destroyed would not amount to the retention of the old constitution. Although it is permissible under the power of amendment to effect changes, howsoever important, and to adapt the system to the requirements of changing conditions, it is not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern. The words amendment of the constitution with all their wide sweep and amplitude cannot have the effect of destroying or abrogating the basic structure or framework of the constitution. It would not be competent under the garb of amendment, for instance, to change the democratic government into dictatorship or hereditary monarchy nor would it be permissible to abolish the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The secular character of the state according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only cannot likewise be done away with. Provision regarding the amendment of the constitution does not furnish a pretence for subverting the structure of the constitution nor can Article 368 be so construed as to embody the death wish of the Constitution or provides sanction for what may perhaps be called its lawful harakiri. Such subversion or destruction cannot be described to be amendment of the Constitution as contemplated by Article 368." It was further observed by me: "The word 'amendment' in Article 368 must carry the same meaning whether the amendment relates to taking away or abridging fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution or whether it pertains to some other provision outside Part III of the Constitution. No serious objection is taken to repeal, addition or alteration of provisions of the Constitution other than those in Part III under the power of amendment conferred by Article 368. The same approach, in my opinion, should hold good when we deal with amendment relating to fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. It would be impermissible to differentiate between scope and width of power of amendment when it deals with fundamental rights and the