Justice M.H. Beg disagreed with Ray C.J. on the basis that it would not be necessary to have a constitution if the constitutional power of the legislature were greater than the legislature.  Judicial powers were transferred to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts and Parliament could not exercise them. He affirmed that the primacy of the constitution and the separation of powers were fundamental characteristics as understood by the majority in the case of Kesavananda Bharati. Beg J. pointed out that the doctrine of fundamental structure also includes common law within its scope. According to A.N. Ray C.J., the constituent power of Parliament took precedence over the Constitution itself and was therefore not bound by the principle of separation of powers.
Parliament could therefore exempt laws relating to electoral disputes from judicial review. He strangely said that democracy is a fundamental characteristic, but not free and fair elections. Ray C.J. held that ordinary legislation was outside the scope of the guidelines. The dissenting opinion of Justice A.N. Ray (whose appointment as Chief Justice was widely considered politically motivated beyond the heads of three senior judges shortly after the Kesavanand judgment), Justice M.H. Beg, Justice K.K. Mathew and Judge S.N. Dwivedi also agreed that Golaknath had been ill-decided. They upheld the validity of the three amendments challenged in court.
Ray J. held that all parts of the Constitution were essential and that no distinction could be made between its essential and insubstantial parts. All agreed that Parliament can make fundamental changes to the Constitution by exercising its powers under section 368. In 1975, the Supreme Court again had the opportunity to comment on the fundamental structure of the constitution. A challenge to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi`s election victory was upheld by the Supreme Court in Allahabad in 1975 for electoral fraud. In anticipation of the appeal, the holiday judge – Justice Krishna Iyer – granted a suspension allowing H.M. Indira Gandhi to serve as prime minister on condition that she does not receive a salary and does not speak or vote in parliament until the case is decided. Meanwhile, Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which stripped the Supreme Court of the power to rule on petitions concerning the elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Instead, a body constituted by parliament would have the power to settle such electoral disputes.
Section 4 of the Amending Act effectively thwarted any attempt to challenge the election of an incumbent who held any of the above-mentioned positions before the courts. This was clearly a preventive measure intended to benefit Hm. Indira Gandhi, whose election was the subject of the ongoing dispute. By including this as a prerequisite for the rule of law, Dicey felt that simply incorporating the above two principles into the country`s constitution or other laws was not sufficient for the state to be a state in which the principles of the rule of law are followed. There must be an enforcement authority, and Dicey believed that authority could be found in the courts. The courts are the executors of the rule of law and must be both impartial and free from outside influence. In this way, freedom of justice becomes an important pillar of the rule of law. Does the Chief Justice of India, although empowered by the Order of 10 November 2017, have absolute, undirected and arbitrary administrative powers to “form the Chambers of the Court and assign cases to the Chambers so constituted”? Of course not.
He is bound by the rule of law as much as anyone else in the exercise of administrative powers under the constitutional system. There can be no doubt as to how this is possible in the relevant case law. If there is one principle that is firmly rooted in our constitutionalism, it is this: “Be so high, the law is above you.” This principle, originally enunciated by Thomas Fuller, a seventeenth-century English clergyman and historian, has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme Court in its judgments. Thus, the Chief Justice is also bound by the law. Cricket Czar Lalit Modi, who is now charged with a crime under various sections of the law, has once again proved to the world that in India, if you are rich and powerful, you are above the law. During his interview with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, Modi told a true Indian story in its characteristic extravagance. A story where money can buy loyalty and help you undermine laws. “The foundation of our democracy is the rule of law, and that means we need an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independently of political winds.” -Caroline Kennedy To understand the concept of the rule of law, it is necessary to understand that the state is not governed by the leader or designated representatives of the people, but by law. The term “rule of law” is not defined anywhere in the Indian constitution, but the term is often used by the Indian judiciary in its judgments. The rule of law has been declared by the Supreme Court as one of the fundamental characteristics of the constitution, so it cannot even be changed by constitutional amendment. The rule of law is considered an integral part of good governance.
 According to the rule of law, it is necessary for the people to be governed according to accepted rules and not according to decisions taken arbitrarily by the rulers. For this, it is important to remember that the established rules must be general and abstract, known and safe, and apply equally to all individuals. The legal limitation of government is the essential characteristic of constitutionalism. Rulers are not above the law according to the concept of constitutionalism, governmental power is shared with laws enacted by one body and administered by another, and for this there is an independent judiciary to enforce laws.  All justices upheld the validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, which states that Parliament has the power to amend all or part of the provisions of the Constitution. All the signatories of the summary considered that the Golaknath case had been badly decided and that Article 368 contained both the power and the procedure for amending the Constitution.  Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845. Under the Constitution, the Indian Parliament and the state legislatures have the power to legislate within their respective jurisdictions.
This power is not absolute. The Constitution gives the judiciary the power to decide on the constitutional validity of all laws. If an Act of the State Legislature or Legislature violates a provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to declare that law invalid or ultra vires. Despite this control, the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document and not a rigid framework of governance. Parliament was therefore empowered to amend the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament`s amending powers are absolute and cover all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has dampened Parliament`s legislative enthusiasm since independence. In order to preserve the original ideals of constitutional legislators, the Supreme Court has stated that Parliament cannot distort, damage or alter the main features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. The term “basic structure” itself is not found in the constitution. The Supreme Court first recognized this concept in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.  Since then, the Supreme Court has been the interpreter of the Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by Parliament.
India`s labour law is one of the most comprehensive in the world. They have been criticised by the World Bank mainly because of the rigidity resulting from the need for the government to authorise dismissals. In practice, there is a large informal sector of workers, between 80 and 90 per cent of the workforce, for whom labour rights are not really available and laws are not enforced. Christian family law now has various sub-branches such as the laws on marriage, divorce, restitution, legal separation, succession, adoption, guardianship, alimony, custody of minor children and the relevance of canon law and everything that governs family relations.