It all comes back which was gone once

The author feels that the life of law is like a circle,which revolve and come to the same place where it took a start. What so ever starts comes to an ends and then there is a new start which is the same as the old. Lets view the statement made above in the light of the amending power of the constitution of India. The Indian Constitution in Article 368 describes the amending power of the constitution. The Supreme Court for the first time was called upon in Sankari Prasad case as to adjudge the scope and nature of the power conferred upon the parliament under Art 368 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the power to amend is a constituent power and thus the only limitation on the power is the procedural limitations stated in Art. 368. Later the court in Sajjan Singh case faced revolutionary views in the concurring judgement of  Justice Madholkar and Justice Hidituyalla, where the learned judges felt discomfort in accepting the views of the Supreme Court in Sankari Prasad case. As a story tale the kingdom of the parliament over fundamental rights was first captured by the Supreme Court in Golak Nath case, the court by a bare majority held that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution doesn't extends to the fundamental rights due to the limitations imposed by Art 13(2). 

A great disaster was made by the Supreme Court in this case, but as everyone knows that in this world of so called intellectuals, the court came up with a negotiation in the landmark case of Kesavananda bharti case, the court denied the false reasoning of the majority in Golak Nath case, and held that the parliament has no power to amend the basic structure of the constitution and the court very cunningly took the huge burden of laying down the so called basic structure on its shoulders. 

The basic structure was not a cure but a virus, like a virus it spread its side-effects on not only legislative power of the parliament but also to the executive case in Waman Rao case and S.R Bommai Case respectively. 

Was this the end, if yes then whether the statement made by the author is justified, no it is not still the death of the article, but from here the article starts its justification. In I.R Cohelo case court slowly engulfed Art. 21 and Art. 14 as the basic structure of the constitution. This was never laid in  Kesavananda Bharati, the only thing laid in that case was the judicial review as the basic structure of the constitution. The court in the name of basic structure of the constitution held the said rights to be outside the domain of the parliament as it was once done by Subha Rao in the Golak Nath case. It cast a impression on my mind that the court has accepted that which was once denied. Thus the life of law is a circle which revolve and come to the same place where it took a start.