because they formed, always and necessarily, the more numerous class. But the word is commonly used “in the sense of the rule of the majority of the community as a whole, including 'classes' and 'masses'.........., since that is the only method yet discovered for determining what is deemed to be the will of a body politic which is not unanimous. This will is expressed through the election of representatives”.** C.F. Strong defines democracy to mean “that form of government in which the ruling power of a State is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of a community as a whole”. This may more aptly be called a description rather than a definition of democracy because it is beyond human ingenuity to foresee the possible permutations and combinations of circumstances to which a generalisation may have to be applied. 676. Forgetting mere words which Tennysom said: 'Like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the Soul within', the substance of the matter is the rule of the majority and the manner of ascertaining the will of the majority is through the process of elections. I find myself unable to accept that the impugned provisions destroy the democratic structure of our government. The rule is still the rule of the majority despite the 39th Amendment and no law or amendment of the fundamental instrument has provided for the abrogation of the electoral process. In fact it is through that process that the electorate expressed its preference for Smt. Indira Gandhi over Shri Raj Narain and others. Article 326 of the Constitution by which the elections to the house of the People and to the State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of Adult Suffrage still stands. Article 79 which provides that “There shall be a Parliament...... which shall consist of ........ two Houses”, Article 80 and 81 which prescribe the composition of the two Houses. Article 83 which provides for the duration of the Houses, Article 85 which directs that six months shall not intervene between the two sessions of Parliament, Article 100 (1) which provides that all questions shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting article 105 which preserves the powers and privileges of the members of Parliament and the counterparts of these articles in regard to State Legislatures retain their pristine primacy. These articles, unimpaired as they remain even after the 39th Amendment, are enough assurance that the Parliament is not leading the country to a totalitarian path. 677. This is not to put a seal of approval on the immunity conferred on any election but it is hard to generalize from a single instance that such an isolated act of immunity has destroyed or threatens to destroy the democratic frame-work of our government. One swallow does not make a summer. The swallow with its pointed wings, forked tail, a curving flight and twittering cry is undoubtedly a harbinger of summer but to see all these in the 39th Amendment and to argue that the summer of a totalitarian rule is knocking at the threshold is to take an unduly alarmist view of the political scene as painted by the amendment. Very often, as said by Sir Fredrick Bollock, “If there is any real danger it is of the alarmist's own making”.* 678. The 39th Amendment is however, open to grave objection on other grounds, in so far as clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329-A are concerned.