and other Ministers in Orissa. While some of the charges were found true, Biju himself was absolved. He served as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court from 1969 until September 1971 when he was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. Judge of the Supreme Court Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Basic Structure Doctrine) While the Habeas Corpus case is Justice Khanna's most celebrated ruling, almost as well known is his judgment in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati. In 1973, the Supreme Court constituted its largest-ever bench of 13 judges to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution or not. On 24 April 1973, seven out of 13 judges held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was limited. Six other judges in the case were of the view that Parliament's power was unrestricted. Justice Khanna's judgment held that, although the Constitution is amenable to amendments, changes that ultra vires, tinker with its basic structure cannot be made by Parliament, that is – certain parts of the constitution were "basic" and could not be amended. However, he also said the amendment of the right was fundamental – as he explained, "if no provision were made for the amendment of the Constitution, the people would have recourse to extra-constitutional methods la ike revolution". The judgment clarified and partially overruled the court's earlier verdict in Golak Nath by holding that Parliament could amend the Constitution, particularly the property right. The Habeas Corpus Case Justice Khanna is renowned for his courage and independence during the period that has been called the darkest hour of Indian democracy, during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi. The emergency was declared when Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court invalidated the election of Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha in June 1975, upholding charges of electoral fraud, in the case filed by Raj Narain. In an atmosphere where a large number of people had been detained without trial under the repressive Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), several high courts had given relief to the detainees by accepting their right to habeas corpus as stated in Article 21 of the Indian constitution. This issue was at the heart of the case of the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, which came up for hearing in front of