460 SUPIU!ME COURT IU!POllTS [ 1973] Supp. s.c.11.

not accept the argument. It was said that the words "without pre-
judice to the generality of the provisions cont.tined in Article 31A"
indicate that the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule
would have the same immunity even if did not attract Article 31A of
the Constitution. If every Act in the Ninth Schedule would be
covered by Article 31A, Article 31B would be redundant. Some of the
Acts mentioned in the Ninth Schedule, namoly, items 14 to 20 and
many other Acts added to the Ninth Schedule, do not appear to
relate to estates as defined in Article 31A(2) of the Constitution. It
was, therefore, held in fee;ibhoy case that Article 31B was a constitu-
tional device to place the specific statute beyond any attack oo the
ground that they infringe Part III of the Con.stirution.

The words "without prejudice to the generality of the: provisions

contained in Article 31A" occurring in Article 31B indicate that
Article 31B stands independent of Article 31A. Article 31B and the
Schedule are placed beyond any attack on the ground that they ill-
fringe Part III of the Con•titution. Article 31B need not relate to any
particular type of legislation. Article 3IB gives a mandate and com-
plete protection from the challenge of fundamental rights to the
Scheduled Ac~ and the Regulations. Article 31A protects laws in re.-
pect of live subject matters from the chall;engc cl. Arficks 14, 19 and
31, but not retrospectively. Article 31B protects Schcdukd Acts and
the Regulations and none of the Scheduled Acts arc deemed to be
void or even to-have become void on the ground cl. contravention of
any fundamental right.

The validity of the Constitution 29th Amendment Act lies withia

a narrow compass. Article 31B has been held by this Court to be a
valid amendment. Article 31B has also been held by this Court to be
an independent provisiol\. Article 31B has no connection with Article
31A. The Bihar Lan_d Reforms case and feejibhoy casi: arc. wdl scttleil
authorities for that proposition. It, therefore, follows that Mr. Palkhi-
vala 's contention cannot be accepted that before the Acts can be in-
cluded in the Ninth Schedule requirements of Article 31A are -to be
complied with. '

For the foregoing reasons these arc the conclusioll5.

First, the power to amend the Constitution is located in Article

368. Second, neither; the Constitution nor an amendment of the Cons·
titution can be or is law within the meaning of Article 13. Law ia
Article 13 means laws enacted by the legislature subject to the provi-
sion of the Constirution. Law in Articf.e 13(2) does not mean the
Constitution. The Constirution is the supreme law. Third, an amend-
ment of the Cons~tution is an exercise of the constituent power. The
 KESAVANANDA V. KEllALA (Ra;', J.) 461
ma1onty view in Golak Nath case is with respect wrong. Fourth,
I there are no express limitations to the power of amendment. Fifth,
there are no implied and inherent limitations on the power of amend-
ment. Neither the Preamble nor Article 13(2) is at all a limitation on
the power of amendment. Sixth, the power to amend is wide and
unlimited. The power to amend means the power to add, alter or
repeal any· provision of the Constitution. There can be or is no distinc-
tion between essential and in-essenital features of the Constiitution to
raise any impediment to amendment . of alleged essential features.
Parliament in exercise of constituent power can amend any provision
of this Constitution. Under Article 368 the power to amend can also
be increased. The 24th Amendment is valid. The contention of Mr.
Palkhivala that unlimited power of amendment would confer power
to abrogate the Constitution is rightly answered by the Attorney
General and Mr. Seervai that amendment does not mean mere abroga-
tion or wholesale repeal of the Constitullion. The Attorney General
and Mr. Seervai emphasised that an amendment would leave an organic
mechanism providing the Constitution organisation and system for
the State. If the Constitution ca.nnot have a vital growth it needs must
wither. That is why it was stressed on behalf of the respondents that
orderly and peaceful changes in a constitutional manner would absorb
all amendments to all provisions of the Constitution which in the end
would be "an amendment of this Constitution".

The 25th Amendment is valid. The adequacy of amount fixed or

the principles specified cannot be the subject matter of judicial review.
The amendment of Article 31(2B) Is valid. Artic!ie 31(2) is self con-
tained and Articles 31(2) and 19(l)(f) are mutually exclusive. Amend-
ment of fundamental right prior to the amendment was and is now
after the 24th Amendment valid. Article 31C does not ddegate or confer
any power on the State legislature to amend the Constitution. Article
31 C merely removes the restrictions of Part III from any legislation
giving effect to Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and ( c). The
power of Parliament and of State legislatures to legislate on the class
of legislation covered by Article 31C is rendered immune from Articles
14, 19 and 31.

The inclusion of the Kerala Act 35 of 1969 and the Kerala Act
25 of 1971 by the 29th Amendment in the Ninth Schedule is valid.
Article 31B is independent of Article 31A.

In the result the contentions of Mr. Palkhivala fail. Each party

will pay and bear its own costs. The petitlions will be placed before
the Constitution Bench for disposal in accordance with law.
30-36-S. C. India/73