... .... ... ... .... ... ... .... In our constituent Assembly this twenty sixth day of November, 1949 do hereby adopt enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.’’ 556. This Court, exercising the powers vested in it under the Constitution to declare the law of the land, cannot go behind the clear words of the Constitution on such a matter. We have to presume that the Constitution was actually made by the people of India by virtue of their political sovereignty which enable them to create a legally Sovereign Democratic Republic to which they consigned or entrusted, through the Constitution, the use of sovereign power to be exercised, in its different forms, by the three different organs of Government, each acting on behalf of the whole people, so as to serve the objects stated in the Preamble. This reference to ‘‘the people of India’’ is much more than a legal fiction. It is an assertion in the basic legal instrument for the governance of this country of the fact of a new political power. The legal effect of the terms of the instrument is another matter. 557. It has been pointed out, in the Kesvananda Bharati’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (supra), that the preamble of our Constitution did not, like that of the American Constitution, ‘‘walk before the Constitution’’, but was adopted after the rest of the Constitution was passed so that it is really a part of the Constitution itself. It means that the Constitution is a document recording an act of entrustment and conveyance by the people of India, the political soverign, of legal authority to act on its behalf to a ‘‘Sovereign Democratic Republic.’’ “This Constitution’’ has a basic structure comprising the three organs of the Republic the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. It is through each of these organs that the Sovereign Will of the People has to operate and manifest itself and not through only one of them. Neither of these three separate organs of the Republic can take over the function asigned to the other. This is the basic structure or scheme of the system of Government of the Republic laid down in this Constitution whose identity cannot, according to the majority view in Kesvananda’s cases (supra), be changed even by resorting to Article 368. It necessarily follows, from such view, that Sovereignty, as the power of taking ultimate or final decisions on broad politico-legal issues involved in any proposed changes in the law, becomes divisible. The people are not excluded from the exercise of it. They participate in all the operations of the Republic through the organs of the State. They bind themselves to exercise their individual and collective rights and powers only in the ways sanctioned and through agencies indicated by the Constitution. They Republic is controlled and directed by the Constitution to proceed towards certain destinations and for certain purposes only. The power to change even the direction and purposes is itself divided in the sense that a proposed change, if challenged, must be shown to have the sanction of all the three organs of the Republic, each applying its own methods and principles and procedure for testing the correctness or validity of the measure. This result, whether we like it or not, necessarily follows from our present constitutional structure and scheme. If the judicial power operates here like a brake or a veto, it is not one which can be controlled by any advice