It is being argued by some lawyers that Parliament is incompetent to undertake sweeping changes in the Constitution under the 44th Amendment Bill, currently being debated in the Lok Sabha. They contend that the decision in Keshava-nanda Bharati's case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) is that Parliament under Article 368 cannot so amend the Constitution as to alter its basic structure. It is obvious that no Court, including the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to sit in judgment over an Article of the Constitution; much less over Article 368 which is called, by Mr. Justice Khanna, the Constitution itself. Indeed in Sankari Prasad's case in 1951 (AIR 1951 SC 458) and in Sajjan Singh's case in 1964, (AIR 1965 SC 845) the Supreme Court •upheld this Constitutional position, that any amendment under Article 368 being a part of the Constitution itself, is beyond the purview of the Supreme Court. These judgments, upheld the sovereignty of Parliament, to exercise its undoubted and u ....