scope and width of that power when it deals with provisions not concerned with fundamental rights." It would appear from the above that no distinction was made by me so far as the ambit and scope of the power of amendment is concerned between a provision relating to fundamental rights and provisions dealing with matters other than fundamental rights. The limitation inherent in the word "amendment" according to which it is not permissible by amendment of the Constitution to change the basic structure of the Constitution was to operate equally on articles pertaining to fundamental rights as on other articles not pertaining to those rights. This was further made clear by the following observations on page 688: "Subject to the retention of the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. I have no doubt that the power of amendment is plenary and would include within itself the power to add, alter or repeal the various articles including those relating to fundamental rights." Proposition (vii) of the summary of my conclusions on page 758 of the judgment also bears it out and the same reads as under: "(vii) The power of amendment under Article 368 does not include power to abrogate the Constitution not does it include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Subject to the retention of the basic structure or framework of the Constitution, the power of amendment is plenary and includes within itself the power to amend the various articles of the Constitution, including those relating to fundamental rights as well as those which may be said to relate to essential features. No part of a fundamental right can claim immunity from amendatory process by being described as the essence or core of that right. The power of amendment would also include within itself the power to add, alter or repeal the various articles". 252. It has been stated by me on page 685 of the judgment (already reproduced above) that the secular character of the State, according to which the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only cannot likewise be done away with. The above observations show that the secular character of the Constitution and the right guaranteed by Article 15 pertain to the basic structure of the Constitution. The above observations clearly militate against the contention that according to my judgement fundamental rights are not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. I also dealt with the matter at length to show that the right to property was not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This would have been wholly unnecessary if none of the fundamental rights was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 253. Before parting with this case I must acknowledge the assistance we received from the learned counsel for the parties as also from learned Attorney General and Solicitor General in resolving the points of controversy. In spite of the political overtones, the case was argued forcefully yet without generating any heat and in an atmosphere of befitting calmness. It has been said by Holmes, J. that great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great