provisions of Article 329-A shall take effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. 175. The proposition that the power of amendment under Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution was laid down by this Court by a majority of 7 to 6 in the case of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala, (1973) Supp SCR 1=(AIR 1973 SC 1461). Apart from other reasons which were given in some of the judgements of the learned Judges who constituted the majority, the majority dealt with the connotation of the word "amendment." It was held that the words "amendment of the Constitution" in Art. 368 could not have the effect of destroying or abrogating the basic structure of the Constitution. Some of us who were parties to that case took a different view and came to the conclusion that the words "amendment of the Constitution" in Article 368 did not admit of any limitation. Those of us who were in the minority in Kesavananda's case (supra) may still hold the same view as was given expression to in that case. For the purpose of the present case, we shall have to proceed in accordance with the law as laid down by the majority in that case. 176. Before dealing with the question as to whether the impugned amendment affects the basic structure of the Constitution I may make it clear that this Court is not concerned with the wisdom behind or the propriety of the impugned constitutional amendment. These are matters essentially for those who are vested with the authority to make the constitutional amendment. All that the Court is concerned with is the constitutional validity of the impugned amendment. 177. I may first deal with the second contention advanced by Mr. Shati Bhushan According to him, the impugned constitutions amendement and the amending Act of 1975 were passed in sessions of Parliament where some members, including the respondent, could not be present because they had been illegaly detained. The fact that those measures were passed by the requisite majority has not been questioned by the learned counsel but he submits that if the above meantioned members had not been detained and had not been prevented from attending the sittings of Parliament, they could have influenced the other members and as such is possible that the impugned Constitution Amendment Act and the 1975 R P amending Act might not have been passed. Mr. Shanti Bhushan accordingly asserts that the sitting of the Houses of Parliament in which for above mentioned two meansures were passed were not legal sittings. Any measure passed in such sittings, according to the learned counsel, cannot be considered to be a valid piece of constitutional amendment or statutory amendment. 178. There is, in my opinion, no face in the above submission. The proposition that member of Parliament cannot claim immune from being detained under a law relating to preventive detention does not now admit of much doubt. The privileges, powers and the immunities of the members of the two Houses of Indian Parliament as well as of the Indian legislatures as