77 state’s right to acquire or requisition property on payment of an ‘amount’ must, according to some of these judges, be so exercised that the amounts is not illusory and does not constitute a fraud upon the right to property. 3) Article 31C is valid, even though it damages or destroys the essential features of the Constitution.” Since there was Division by six into six, Khanna, J. agreed with none of these 12 Judges and decided the case midway between the two conflicting views holding that (a) the power of amendment is limited; it does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure of framework of the constitution; and (b) the substantive provision of article 31C, which abrogates the fundamental rights, is valid on the ground that it does not alter the basic structure or framework of the constitution. Now turning to the point as to the interpretation of the constitution, there is no doubt that in interpreting a constitutional document the