the Courts in numerous cases, and have been incorporated in the basic structure. Only Judiciary decides the basic features of the Constitution. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Naraian and also in the Minerva Mills case, it was observed that the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature would be determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. Some of the features of the Constitution termed as "basic" are listed below: Supremacy of the Constitution Rule of law The principle of separation of powers The objectives specified in the preamble to the Constitution of India Judicial review Articles 32 and 226 Federalism (including financial liberty of states under Articles 282 and 293) Secularism The sovereign, democratic, republican structure Freedom and dignity of the individual Unity and integrity of the nation The principle of equality, not every feature of equality, but the quintessence of equal justice; The "essence" of other fundamental rights in Part III The concept of social and economic justice — to build a welfare state: Part IV of the Constitution The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles The parliamentary system of government The principle of free and fair elections Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368 Independence of the judiciary Effective access to justice Powers of the Supreme Court of India under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142 Legislation seeking to nullify the awards made in exercise of the judicial power of the state by arbitration tribunals constituted under an act Background The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments was that no part of the Constitution was unamendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (AIR. 1951 SC 458), the Supreme Court unanimously held, "The terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever. In the context of article 13, "law" must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power, with the result that article 13 (2) does not affect amendments made under article 368. In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (case citation: 1965