Constitution, that the word ‘‘amendment’’ postulates that the old Constitution must survive without loss of identity, that the old Constitution must accordingly be retained though in the amended form, and therefore the power of amendment does not include the power to destroy or abrogate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The remaining six Judges took the view that there were no limitations of any kind on the power of amendment, though three of them seemed willing to foresee the limitation that the entire Constitution could not be abrogated, leaving behind a State without a Constitution. Some scholars have clapped and some scholars have scoffed at the decision in the Fundamental Rights case. These criticisms, I cannot deny, cause a flutter in the ivory tower. But by Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. The law declared by the majority of 7:6 in the Fundamental Rights case must therefore be accepted by us, dutifully and without reserve as good law. The history of law courts abounds with memorable decisions based on a thin majority. 652. These appeals have therefore to be decided in the light of the principle emerging from the majority decision in the Fundamental Rights case that Article 368 does not confer power on the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides have taken many forms and shapes but they ultimately converge on the central theme of basic structure. 653. I would like first to deal with the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment. On that question, the arguments of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, who appears for Shri Raj Narain, may be summed up thus : (i) The 39th Amendment affects the basic structure or framework or the institutional pattern adopted by the Constitution and is therefore beyond the amending power conferred by Art. 368. It destroys the identity of the Constitution. (ii) Separation of powers is a basic feature of the Constitution and therefore every dispute involving the adjudication of legal rights must be left to the decision of the judiciary Clause (4) of Article 329-A introduced by the 39th Amendment takes away that jurisdiction and is therefore void. (iii) The function of the legislature is to legislate and not decide private disputes. In the instant case the Constituent Assembly has transgressed its constituent function by adjudicating upon a private dispute. (iv) Democracy is an essential feature of the Constitution. Free and fair elections are indispensable for the successful working of any democratic government. By providing that the election of the Prime Minister shall not be open to challenge and shall continue to be valid despite the judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that the election is vitiated by corrupt practices, the Constituent Assembly has destroyed the very core of democracy. (v) Equality is an essential feature of a Republican Constitution. The 39th Amendment puts the Prime Minister and the Speaker above the law and beyond the reach of the equality principal The classification made by the 39th Amendment bears no nexus with the sort of immunity granted to two high personages from the operation of election laws. (vi) Rule of law and