 Justice Khanna's judgement 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 right to amendment was fundamental – as he explained, "if no provision were made for amendment of the Constitution, the people would have recourse to extra-constitutional methods like revolution".This judgement clarified and partially over-ruled the court's earlier verdict in Golak Nath by holding that Parliament could amend the Constitution, particularly the right to property.