Notes: Amendment & Basic Structure | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


 
Amendment and Basic Structure:
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
reflection of these very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3
parliamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
legislation. 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
our founding document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it."
Notably, these amendments are n
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
amended in three ways: 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
 
Amendment and Basic Structure: 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures. The latter include provisions involving 
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245–255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3—may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and 
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. 
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, "The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it." 
Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament, 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
. The latter include provisions involving 
255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes—like the 
may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
thirds of the members of each House present and 
"The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
ot deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
Page 2


 
Amendment and Basic Structure:
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
reflection of these very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3
parliamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
legislation. 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
our founding document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it."
Notably, these amendments are n
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
amended in three ways: 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
 
Amendment and Basic Structure: 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures. The latter include provisions involving 
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245–255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3—may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and 
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. 
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, "The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it." 
Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament, 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
. The latter include provisions involving 
255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes—like the 
may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
thirds of the members of each House present and 
"The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
ot deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and
(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
of the state legislatures. 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows:
1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures.
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permi
3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two
and voting. 
4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal prov
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
voting. 
6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
for assent. 
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
the terms of the Act. 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
straightforward use with over 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows: 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures. 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permission of the president. 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. 
isions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. 
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
Page 3


 
Amendment and Basic Structure:
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
reflection of these very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3
parliamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
legislation. 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
our founding document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it."
Notably, these amendments are n
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
amended in three ways: 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
 
Amendment and Basic Structure: 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures. The latter include provisions involving 
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245–255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3—may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and 
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. 
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, "The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it." 
Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament, 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
. The latter include provisions involving 
255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes—like the 
may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
thirds of the members of each House present and 
"The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
ot deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and
(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
of the state legislatures. 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows:
1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures.
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permi
3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two
and voting. 
4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal prov
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
voting. 
6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
for assent. 
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
the terms of the Act. 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
straightforward use with over 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows: 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures. 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permission of the president. 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. 
isions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. 
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude ch
structure’ of the Constitution.
Article 368 and types of special majority:
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
cent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two
members of each House present and voting. 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
comprising the House irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
absentees. The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
(i) Fundamental Rights; 
(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and 
(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
categories. 
Those provisions of the Constitution wh
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way:
(i) Election of the President and its manner.
(ii) Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.
(iii) Supreme Court and high courts.
(iv) Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
(v) Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.
(vi) Representation of states
(vii) Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself).
Criticism of Amendment procedure:
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
grounds: 
1. There is no provision for a special bo
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude changes to the ‘basic 
structure’ of the Constitution.  
Article 368 and types of special majority: 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
nt) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the 
members of each House present and voting.  
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
Fundamental Rights;  
Directive Principles of State Policy; and  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way: 
the President and its manner. 
Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states. 
Supreme Court and high courts. 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule. 
Representation of states in Parliament. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself). 
Criticism of Amendment procedure: 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
1. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
anges to the ‘basic 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
thirds of the 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacancies or 
The provisions which can be amended by this way include:  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
ich are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
dy like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
Page 4


 
Amendment and Basic Structure:
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
reflection of these very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3
parliamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
legislation. 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
our founding document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it."
Notably, these amendments are n
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
amended in three ways: 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
 
Amendment and Basic Structure: 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures. The latter include provisions involving 
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245–255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3—may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and 
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. 
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, "The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it." 
Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament, 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
. The latter include provisions involving 
255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes—like the 
may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
thirds of the members of each House present and 
"The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
ot deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and
(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
of the state legislatures. 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows:
1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures.
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permi
3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two
and voting. 
4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal prov
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
voting. 
6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
for assent. 
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
the terms of the Act. 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
straightforward use with over 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows: 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures. 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permission of the president. 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. 
isions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. 
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude ch
structure’ of the Constitution.
Article 368 and types of special majority:
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
cent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two
members of each House present and voting. 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
comprising the House irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
absentees. The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
(i) Fundamental Rights; 
(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and 
(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
categories. 
Those provisions of the Constitution wh
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way:
(i) Election of the President and its manner.
(ii) Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.
(iii) Supreme Court and high courts.
(iv) Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
(v) Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.
(vi) Representation of states
(vii) Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself).
Criticism of Amendment procedure:
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
grounds: 
1. There is no provision for a special bo
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude changes to the ‘basic 
structure’ of the Constitution.  
Article 368 and types of special majority: 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
nt) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the 
members of each House present and voting.  
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
Fundamental Rights;  
Directive Principles of State Policy; and  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way: 
the President and its manner. 
Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states. 
Supreme Court and high courts. 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule. 
Representation of states in Parliament. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself). 
Criticism of Amendment procedure: 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
1. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
anges to the ‘basic 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
thirds of the 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacancies or 
The provisions which can be amended by this way include:  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
ich are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
dy like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
legislatures. 
2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constit
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of le
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
disapprove such a resolution or may not take any action on it.
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
by a special majority or by a s
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
is three-fourths of the states.
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
legislatures should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
according the same. 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
Parliament if there is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
ordinary bill. 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
for the special majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
the Parliament in the same way as ordinary bills.
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
they leave a wide scope for taking the matters to the judiciary
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
Constitution: 
Madhav Khosla comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
Theseus puzzle to the relatio
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”. 
 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies with the 
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of le
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
disapprove such a resolution or may not take any action on it. 
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
by a special majority or by a simple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of 
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
fourths of the states. 
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
the Parliament in the same way as ordinary bills. 
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
they leave a wide scope for taking the matters to the judiciary.  
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
Theseus puzzle to the relationship of a body of clay to a statue, philosophers 
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”. 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
ution lies with the 
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of legislative 
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
imple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of 
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
nship of a body of clay to a statue, philosophers 
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”.  And this 
Page 5


 
Amendment and Basic Structure:
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
reflection of these very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3
parliamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
legislation. 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
our founding document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it."
Notably, these amendments are n
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
amended in three ways: 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
 
Amendment and Basic Structure: 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
368 of the Indian Constitution. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
least half of the State legislatures. The latter include provisions involving 
India’s federal scheme, such as Articles 245–255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes
reorganisation of States under Article 3—may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and 
voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. 
Dr B R Ambedkar explained this safeguard. He observed, "The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
the same power to amend it." 
Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament, 
The Indian Constitution is seen as balancing between rigidity and flexibility so 
as to adapt to changing scenarios of the country while maintaining certain 
foundational principles. The amendment process devised in the Constitution is a 
very ideals. The formal amendment power is found in Article 
thirds majority of 
Parliament, present and voting, and in certain specified cases, ratification by at 
. The latter include provisions involving 
255, which distribute power 
between the Union and the States. Further, some changes—like the 
may take place through a simple 
liamentary majority, in the same manner as the enactment of ordinary 
The constituent assembly had the power to amend the constitution by a simple 
majority. The framers provided a safeguard for future parliaments from altering 
document. They specified that any such change would require a 
thirds of the members of each House present and 
"The future 
Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as 
partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the 
passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by 
Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in 
their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly 
has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the 
Constituent Assembly though elected 
on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority 
and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with 
ot deemed to be amendments of the 
Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Therefore, the Constitution can be 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and
(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
of the state legislatures. 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows:
1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures.
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permi
3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two
and voting. 
4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal prov
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
voting. 
6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
for assent. 
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
the terms of the Act. 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
straightforward use with over 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
to amend the Constitution and its procedure which is as follows: 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
not in the state legislatures. 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
and does not require prior permission of the president. 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
ment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half 
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament 
of the Constitution can be initiated only by the 
introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and 
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member 
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a 
majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the 
thirds of the members of the House present 
House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement 
between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting 
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. 
isions of the Constitution, it 
must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple 
majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and 
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the 
state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president 
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his 
assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. 
ident’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional 
amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with 
Madhav Khosla on the one hand, Article 368 has been subject to extensive, 
ver 103 Constitutional Amendments. On the other 
hand, the meaning and limits of Article 368 have invited intense constitutional 
adjudication and debate. In particular, the amendment power has, since 1973, 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude ch
structure’ of the Constitution.
Article 368 and types of special majority:
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
cent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two
members of each House present and voting. 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
comprising the House irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
absentees. The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
(i) Fundamental Rights; 
(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and 
(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
categories. 
Those provisions of the Constitution wh
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way:
(i) Election of the President and its manner.
(ii) Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.
(iii) Supreme Court and high courts.
(iv) Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
(v) Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.
(vi) Representation of states
(vii) Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself).
Criticism of Amendment procedure:
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
grounds: 
1. There is no provision for a special bo
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
 
been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude changes to the ‘basic 
structure’ of the Constitution.  
Article 368 and types of special majority: 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
nt) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the 
members of each House present and voting.  
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacanci
The provisions which can be amended by this way include: 
Fundamental Rights;  
Directive Principles of State Policy; and  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
provisions can be amended in this way: 
the President and its manner. 
Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states. 
Supreme Court and high courts. 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule. 
Representation of states in Parliament. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
(Article 368 itself). 
Criticism of Amendment procedure: 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
1. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
anges to the ‘basic 
The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a 
special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per 
thirds of the 
The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members 
irrespective of fact whether there are vacancies or 
The provisions which can be amended by this way include:  
All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third 
ich are related to the federal structure of 
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with 
the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority. The following 
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states. 
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure 
The amendment procedure in India has been criticised on the following 
dy like Constitutional Convention (as in 
USA) or Constitutional Assembly for amending the Constitution. The 
 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
legislatures. 
2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constit
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of le
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
disapprove such a resolution or may not take any action on it.
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
by a special majority or by a s
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
is three-fourths of the states.
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
legislatures should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
according the same. 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
Parliament if there is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
ordinary bill. 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
for the special majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
the Parliament in the same way as ordinary bills.
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
they leave a wide scope for taking the matters to the judiciary
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
Constitution: 
Madhav Khosla comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
Theseus puzzle to the relatio
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”. 
 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies with the 
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of le
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
disapprove such a resolution or may not take any action on it. 
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
by a special majority or by a simple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of 
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
fourths of the states. 
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
the Parliament in the same way as ordinary bills. 
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
they leave a wide scope for taking the matters to the judiciary.  
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
Theseus puzzle to the relationship of a body of clay to a statue, philosophers 
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”. 
constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state 
ution lies with the 
Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4, the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill 
or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a 
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of legislative 
councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or 
3. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either 
imple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of 
the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them, while in USA, it 
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state 
should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them. Also, it is 
silent on the issue whether the states can withdraw their approval after 
5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the Houses of 
is a deadlock over the passage of a constitutional amendment 
bill. On the other hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an 
6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except 
majority, the constitutional amendment bills are to be passed by 
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too sketchy. Hence, 
Basic Structure Doctrine and power of the Parliament to amend 
comments on the question of identity of the Constitution and 
the impact amendments have on the same. Khosla writes, “From the Ship of 
nship of a body of clay to a statue, philosophers 
have long been perplexed by the idea of the ‘material constitution’”.  And this 
 
question of identity of Indian Constitution is intrinsically linked to the tug of 
war between the Legislature and Judiciary wh
‘Basic Structure doctrine.’  
This tug of war has also raised a number of questions with regard to the status 
and nature of the two organs. The moment judges review constitutional 
amendments they are reviewing the expressi
regarding the representativeness of Judiciary. If a legislature has the power to 
amend a constitution through a super
amendment might be considered as a challenge to the legislatu
represent popular sovereignty.
On the other hand, in such a scenario judicial review serves as a check and 
prevents a legislative body from usurping power from the people. Khosla 
remarks that the judges then through the power of review are
secure the conditions that can legitimate the expression of sovereignty. 
The question regarding amendability and Parliament’s power arose in Shankari 
Prasad Singh Deo, with the enactment of the very first amendment to the 
Constitution.  Article 13 of the Constitution
fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution to be void. In 
Shankari Prasad, the Court dismissed the suggestion that ‘law’ in Article
of the Constitution would include constit
The Court’s recognition of Parliament’s exclusive and supreme power to amend 
the Constitution was based upon the distinction
ordinary legislation. It was thus, held that the Constitution had vested 
Parliament with the authority to exercise constituent power, there was no place 
for any other institution or external standard to intervene in the exercise of this 
power. The same idea was re
However, the two minority opinions in the Sajjan case for the first time raised 
the question of ‘basic features’ of the Constitution and whether amending these 
under Article 368 would lead to an identity crisis for Indian Constitutionalism.  
Justice Hidayatullah raised quest
Article 368 even with regard to Fundamental Rights which were seen as holding 
a unique status. Justice Mudholkar
making a change in the basic feature of the Constitution 
 
question of identity of Indian Constitution is intrinsically linked to the tug of 
war between the Legislature and Judiciary which eventually led to evolution of 
 
This tug of war has also raised a number of questions with regard to the status 
and nature of the two organs. The moment judges review constitutional 
amendments they are reviewing the expression of sovereignty raising questions 
regarding the representativeness of Judiciary. If a legislature has the power to 
amend a constitution through a super-majority, the judicial review of such an 
amendment might be considered as a challenge to the legislature’s capacity to 
represent popular sovereignty. 
On the other hand, in such a scenario judicial review serves as a check and 
prevents a legislative body from usurping power from the people. Khosla 
remarks that the judges then through the power of review are attempting to 
secure the conditions that can legitimate the expression of sovereignty. 
The question regarding amendability and Parliament’s power arose in Shankari 
Prasad Singh Deo, with the enactment of the very first amendment to the 
icle 13 of the Constitution declares laws that contravene the 
fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution to be void. In 
Court dismissed the suggestion that ‘law’ in Article
of the Constitution would include constitutional amendments.  
Parliament’s exclusive and supreme power to amend 
the Constitution was based upon the distinction between constitutional law and 
It was thus, held that the Constitution had vested 
ment with the authority to exercise constituent power, there was no place 
for any other institution or external standard to intervene in the exercise of this 
power. The same idea was re-affirmed in the Sajjan Singh case by 3:2 verdict. 
nority opinions in the Sajjan case for the first time raised 
the question of ‘basic features’ of the Constitution and whether amending these 
under Article 368 would lead to an identity crisis for Indian Constitutionalism.  
raised questions over the absolute and indiscriminate use of 
Article 368 even with regard to Fundamental Rights which were seen as holding 
Mudholkar on the other hand remarked, “whether 
making a change in the basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely 
question of identity of Indian Constitution is intrinsically linked to the tug of 
ich eventually led to evolution of 
This tug of war has also raised a number of questions with regard to the status 
and nature of the two organs. The moment judges review constitutional 
on of sovereignty raising questions 
regarding the representativeness of Judiciary. If a legislature has the power to 
majority, the judicial review of such an 
re’s capacity to 
On the other hand, in such a scenario judicial review serves as a check and 
prevents a legislative body from usurping power from the people. Khosla 
attempting to 
secure the conditions that can legitimate the expression of sovereignty.  
The question regarding amendability and Parliament’s power arose in Shankari 
Prasad Singh Deo, with the enactment of the very first amendment to the 
declares laws that contravene the 
fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution to be void. In 
Court dismissed the suggestion that ‘law’ in Article 13 
Parliament’s exclusive and supreme power to amend 
between constitutional law and 
It was thus, held that the Constitution had vested 
ment with the authority to exercise constituent power, there was no place 
for any other institution or external standard to intervene in the exercise of this 
affirmed in the Sajjan Singh case by 3:2 verdict.  
nority opinions in the Sajjan case for the first time raised 
the question of ‘basic features’ of the Constitution and whether amending these 
under Article 368 would lead to an identity crisis for Indian Constitutionalism.  
ions over the absolute and indiscriminate use of 
Article 368 even with regard to Fundamental Rights which were seen as holding 
on the other hand remarked, “whether 
can be regarded merely