basic structure, it must be a terrestrial concept having its habitat within the four corners of Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution were enacted with a view to ensure the rule of law. Even if I assume that rule of law is a basic structure, it seems to me that the meaning and the constituent elements of the concept must be gathered from the enacting provisions of the Constitution. The equality aspect of the rule of law and of democratic republicanism is provided in Article 14. May be, the other articles referred to do the same duty. 344. Das, C. J. said that Article 14 combines the English doctrine of the rule of law and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the American Federal Constitution. Basheshar Nath V. The Commr., of I T., 1959 Supp (1) SCR 528, at p. 550-551 = (AIR 1959 SC 149). In State of Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 3 SCR 284, at p. 293 = (AIR 1952 SC 75, at p. 79), Patanjali Sastri, C. J. observed that the first part of the Article which has been adopted from the Irish Constitution, is a declaration of equality of the civil rights of all persons within the territories of India and thus enshrines what American judges regard as the "basic principle of republicanism" CF. Ward V. Flood, (1874) 17 Am Rep 405 and that the second part which is a corollary of the first is based on the last clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution. So, the concept of equality which is basic to rule of law and that which is regarded as the most fundamental postulate of republicanism are both embodied in Article 14. If, according to the majority in Bharati's case, (AIR 1973 SC 1461) Article 14 does not pertain to basic structure of the Constitution, which is the other principle of equality incorporated in the Constitution which can be a basic structure of the Constitution or an essential feature of democracy or rule of law? However, it is unnecessary to pursue this aspect of the question as I have already given reasons to show clause (4) to be bad. 345. I think clause (4) is bad for the reasons which I have already summarized. Clauses (1) to (3) of Article 329-A are severable but I express no opinion on their validity as it is not necessary for deciding this case. 346. Then the question is, whether the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act. 1974, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act. 1975, are liable to be challenged for the reason that they damage or destroy a basic structure of the Constitution. Counsel for the respondent submitted that, if, by a constitutional amendment, the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed or damaged, it would be illogical to assume that an ordinary law passed under a power conferred by that instrument can do so and since these Acts damage the concept of free and fair election, the Acts were bad. 347. I think the inhibition to destroy or damage the basic structure by an amendment of the Constitution flows from the limitation on the power of amendment under Article 368 read into it by the majority in Bharati's case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) because of their assumption that there are certain fundamental features in the Constitution which its makers intended to