one or other organ of Government. It was not designed to limit the power of a constituent body. 324. Whereas in the United States of America and in Australia, the judicial power is vested exclusively in Courts, there is no such exclusive vesting of judicial power in the Supreme Court of India and the Courts subordinate to it. And if the amending body exercised judicial power in adjudging the validity of the election, it cannot be said that by that act, it has damaged a basic structure of the Constitution embodied in the doctrine of separation of powers. Even so, the question will remain whether it could exercise judicial power without passing a law enabling it to do so. As I said, the exercise of judicial power can result only in a judgment or sentence. The constituent power no doubt, is all embracing, comprising within its ambit the judicial, executive and legislative powers. But if the constituent power is a power to frame or amend a constitution, it can be exercised only by making laws of a particular kind. 325. The possession of power is distinct from its exercise.* The possession of legislative power by the amending body would not entitle it to pass an ordinary law, unless the Constitution is first amended by passing a constitutional law authorizing it to do so. In the same way, the possession of judicial power by the amending body would not warrant the exercise of the power, unless a constitutional law is passed by the amending body enabling it to do so. Until that is done, its potential judicial power would not become actual. Nobody can deny that by passing a law within its competence, parliament can vest judicial power in any authority for deciding a dispute or vest a part of that power in itself for resolving a controversy, as there is no exclusive vesting of judicial power in Courts by the Constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers which is directed against the concentration of the whole or substantial part of the judicial power in the legislature or the executive would not be a bar to the vesting of such a power in itself. But, until a law is passed enabling it to do so, its potential judicial power would not become actual. 326. Lord Coke objected to the exercise of judicial power by James I for pragmatic reasons. Much of what Lord Coke said* can be applied to parliament when it seeks to exercise that power in its constituent capacity. 327. A sovereign in any system of civilized jurisprudence is not like an oriental despot who can do anything he likes in any manner he likes and at any time he likes. That the Nizam of Hyderabad had legislative, judicial and executive powers and could exercise any one of them by a firman has no relevance when we are considering how a pro-sovereign – the holder of the amending power – in a country governed by a constitution should function. Such a sovereign can express 'himself' only by passing a particular kind of law; and not through sporadic acts. 'He' cannot pick and choose cases according to his whim and dispose them of by administering 'cadi-justice': nor can the amending body as already noticed, pass an ordinary law, as Article 368 speaks of the constituent power of amending by way of addition, variation or repeal, any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the