78 SOCIAL SCIENTIST in our country, it would be dangerous to assent to a proposition that the Judiciary should be enfeebled. For a weak judiciary would mean a strong executive and., not as some would have us believe., parliamentary or legislative supremacy. Some separation of functions would therefore be necessary and., in the present setup one cannot think of anything else but a strong and independent judiciary. Public opinion should be relied upon to make the judiciary ^behave" as in the United States. There is much truth in the conclusions of Friedrich that ^in the absence of a constitution deeply rooted in tradition such as exists in England, Switzerland or Sweeden, a judiciary capable of exercising judicial review will be required if a constitution, in the political sense of a set of techniques for restraining the actions of the government, is to be established". There is also a revival of emphasis by modern jurists on the role of the judiciary. Francois Geny grants a comprehensive role to the judge in bringing about a just balance of conflicting private interests, which is one of his three basic principles about legal rules. So much has been the reaction against totalitarianism that Geny even supports the extreme and desperate sanction of insurrection in resistance to oppression of despotic laws. Consequences of Constitutional Changes In any event, amendments or changes in the constitution require a thorough probe into its probable consequences on the social and political process. Constitutional changes have been the subject of searching analysis and profound thinking in different countries and it would not be wise to dismiss the problem by merely invoking the sovereign parliament and saying that a sovereign parliament can at any moment make any changes in the constitution by which a political society is governed. Coming nearer home, we have to say that the Constitution (44th Amendment) Bill makes deep and in some cases radical changes in the constitutional set-up. It upsets the federal structure by providing that the centre can send military or police or both to quell what it considers to be a disturbance within the borders of a state and that it can do so "even without consulting the wishes of either the people of the state or its elected government. It provides for a fresh system of constitutional dictatorship under which emergency may be declared in any area or portion of an area of the Indian Union with the resultant suspension of -civil liberties not merely in the area concerned but also, if the central government so chooses, in other parts of India though these other parts may not be threatened either by internal disturbance or by external aggression. It provides for enactment of Draconian measures against so-called anti-national activities which are so widely and vaguely defined as to include all actions which may be unpalatable to the government in power. It reduces the number of subjects on which the state my} legislate under article 246 (2) of the constitution. It reduces the power of judicial