judicial review are also basic features of the Constitution. To free certain persons from the constraints of law and to place their conduct beyond judicial review is to destroy the identity of the Constitution. No freedom is secure without the court to project it. The organic balance between the three branches the legislature executive and the judiciary is upset by eroding the authority of the Supreme Court in a vital matter like elections. And the Rule of Law is abrogated by providing that the election of the Prime Minister shall continue to be valid and will be open to no challenge before any court or any authority whatsoever. (vii) The concept of political justic recognized by the Preamble is violated by the 39th Amendment. The Constitution can always be subverted by the revolutionary methods. The question is whether it is permissible to the Parliament to use the legitimacy of constitutional provisions for effecting revolutionary changes. (viii) The constituent power partakes of legislative power an can only be exercised within the highest ambit of the latter power. Therefore even with two-third majority the constituent body cannot exercise executive or judicial power. For example the power to appoint or dismiss a Government servant or the power to declare war which are executive power cannot be exercised by the Constituent Assembly. Similarly, it cannot, in the guise of amending the Constitution, provide that an accused arraigned before a criminal court shall be acquitted and shall be deemed to be innocent. The constituent body can make changes in the conditions of the exercise of judicial power but it cannot usurp that power: and lastly. (IX) The question in the Fundamental Right case was whether Parliament can in the excises of its power of amendment abridge or take away Fundamental Rights and whether there are any inherent or implied limitations on the Parliaments power of amendment. In other words, the question was whether the power of amendment can be exercised so as to destory or mutilate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights case did not involve the consideration of the question as to what the power of amendment comprehends. Promoting and demoting Government servants passing and failing students who have appeared in an examination grating or withdrawing building contracts and last but not the least, declaring who has won and who has lost an election are matters clearly outside the scope of the amending power under Article 368, which means and implies the power to alter the fundamental instrument of country's governance. 654. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and for Smt. Indira Gandhi did not dispute the contention that the appeals before us must be disposed of on the basis of the law laid down by the majority in the Fundamental Rights case. 655. The learned Attorney General contended that : (i) The majority decision in the Fundamental Rights case is not an authority for the proposition that there could be no free or fair elections without judicial review. The Constitutions and laws of several countries leave the decision of election disputes to the judgment of the legislatures themselves. The history of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 as also various articles in our