542. Some quite honest, upright, and intelligent people think that the inefficiency, the corruption, the expense the waste of time and efforts, and the delay in accomplishing what they regard as much too urgently needed socioeconomic and cultural transformations of backward peoples today, involved in treading the democratic path, are so great that they would readily sacrifice at least some of the democratic processes and such safeguards against their misuse as separation of powers and judicial review are meant to provide. They would not mind taking the risk of falling into the fire to escape from what they belive to be a frying pan. Some may even agree with Bernard Shaw, who liked to look at everything turned upside down in attempts to understand them, that Democracy, with all its expensive and time-consuming accompaniments, is even in the most advanced countries only a method of deluding the mass of the people into believing that they are the rulers whilst the real power is always enjoyed by the few who must be judged by the results they produce and not by their professions. Others regard democracy as the only means of achieving the highest good and the greatest happiness of the greatest number. They consider its maintenance to be inextricably bound up with the preservation of the basic individual freedom and a supporting mechanism or structure of checks and balances, separation of powers and judicial review. What some believe to be obstacles to any real progress are looked upon by others as almost sacred institutions essential for the protection of their lives and liberties, hearths and homes, occupations and means of livelihood, religious, languages, and cultures. Inevitability of change is, according to some, the basic and inescapable law of all life, the only questions to be considered being its pace and direction: how soon or how late and whether the change is to be for the better or for the worse? ‘‘El Dorado’’, some believe, lies ahead. Our march towards it, they say, should be orderly and disciplined. To others all change is anathema as it is generally for the worse. The Golden Age, some believe lay in the past. Salvation of mankind, they think lies in a return to the imagined pristine virtues of that past. Some assert that certain amendments of our Constitution have ‘‘defaced and defiled’’ it (See: Mr. Palkhivala’s ‘‘Our Constitution’’). Others maintain that these very amendments have made our Constitution a more potent instrument of those socio-economic and cultural transformations for which the Constitution was designed (See: Dr. V.A. Seyid Muhammad’s ‘‘Our Constitution for Haves or Havenots?’’ 543. Judges must, no doubt, be impartial and independent. They cannot, in a period of intensified socio-economic conflicts, either becometools of any vested interests, or function, from the bench, as zealous reformers propagating particular course. Nevertheless, they cannot be expected to have no notions whatsoever of their own, or to have completely blank minds on important questions indicated above which though related to law, really fall outside the realm of law. They cannot dwell in ivory towers or confine their processes of thinking in some hermetically sealed chambers of purely legal logic artificially cut off from the needs of life around to which law must respond. Their differing individual philosophies, outlooks and attitudes on