16. It should be stated here that the hearing has proceeded on the assumption that it is not necessary to challenge the majority view in Kesavananda Bharati’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461). The contentions of the respondent are these : First, under Article 368 only general principles governing the organs of the State and the basic principles can be laid down. An amendment of the Constitution does not contemplate any decision in respect of individual cases. Clause (4) of Article 329-A is said to be in exercise of a purely judicial power which is not included in the constituent power conferred by Article 368. 17. Second, the control over the result of the elections and on the question whether the election of any person is valid or invalid is vested in the judiciary under the provisions of Article 329 and Article 136. The jurisdiction of judicial determination is taken away, and, therefore, the democratic character of the Constitution is destroyed. 18. Third, the Amendment destroys and abrogates the principles of equality. It is said that there is no rational basis for differentiation between persons holding high offices and other persons elected to Parliament. 19. Fourth, the rule of law is the basis for democracy and judicial review. The fourth clause makes the provisions of Part VI of the Representation of the People Act inapplicable to the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker. 20. Fifth, clause (4) destroys not only judicial review but also separation of power. The order of the High Court declaring the election to be void is declared valid. The cancellation of the judgment is denial of political justice which is the basic structure of the Constitution. 21. The second ground is that the constitution of the House which passed the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act is illegal. It is said that a number of members of Parliament of the two Houses were detained by executive order after 26 June, 1975. These persons were not supplied any grounds of detention or given any opportunity of making a representation against their detention. Unless the President convenes a session of the full Parliament by giving to all members thereof an opportunity to attend the Session and exercise their right of speech and vote, the convening of the session will suffer from illegality and unconstitutionality and cannot be regarded as a session of the two Houses of Parliament. The mere fact that a person may be deprived of his right to move any court to secure his release from such illegal detention by means of a presidential order under Article 359 does not render the detention itself either legal or constitutional. The Important leaders of the House have been prevented from participation. Holding of the session and transacting business are unconstitutional. 22. Under the first ground these are the contentions. The Constitution Amendment affects the basic structure of institutional pattern adopted by the Constitution. The basic features of separation of powers with the role of independence of judiciary is changed by denying jurisdiction of this Count to test the validity of the election. The essential feature of democracy will be destroyed if power is conceded to Parliament to declare the elections void