The Amendment of the Indian Constitution
1. Introduction — A Constitution That Must Live and Breathe
Imagine writing a set of rules in 1950 to govern a country of 350 million people — rules meant to last not just for that generation, but for every generation that follows. How do you write something permanent enough to provide stability, yet flexible enough to accommodate changes in society, economy, technology, and values that nobody in 1950 could have anticipated?
This is the fundamental challenge every constitution faces. A constitution that is too rigid becomes irrelevant — frozen in time while the country moves on. A constitution that is too easy to change becomes worthless — a piece of paper that any temporary majority can rewrite to suit its own interests. The Indian Constitution's framers tried to find a middle path. They gave India a constitution that can be amended, but not too easily — one that can grow and adapt, but not be dismantled.
Article 368 contains the power and procedure for constitutional amendment. But Article 368 alone tells only part of the story. The Supreme Court's Basic Structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) added a further limit — Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy what the Constitution fundamentally is. Together, these two elements define the space within which India's constitutional text can change.
2. Why Do We Need Constitutional Amendments?
Before getting into the procedure, it is worth pausing on the more fundamental question — why do we need to amend a constitution at all? Why not just write a perfect document and leave it alone?
- Social change
- Policy needs
- Judicial decisions
Territorial changes
- Correcting errors
- External obligations
3. Article 368 — The Amendment Provision
- Article 368(1): Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
- Article 368(2): An amendment may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. When the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House AND by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting (and, where the amendment seeks to change certain specified provisions, it must also be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States), it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure: Landmark Cases and Constitutional Impact
4. Three Methods of Amendment — Not All Changes Are Equal
This is one of the most important aspects of constitutional amendment law. The Constitution does not treat all its provisions the same way. There are effectively three methods of amendment, each requiring a different quantum of support.
| Method 1 — Simplest | Method 2 — Standard | Method 3 — Most difficult |
|---|---|---|
Simple majority : Some provisions can be amended by a simple majority — same as ordinary legislation. These include admission of new states, formation of new states, alteration of boundaries and names, abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in states. These are amended under Articles other than Article 368 and are not technically "constitutional amendments" in the formal sense. | Special majority : Most constitutional amendments require special majority under Article 368 — majority of total membership of each House AND two-thirds of members present and voting. The Bill must pass both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha separately. There is NO provision for a joint sitting for constitutional amendments. | Special majority + state ratification : Certain entrenched provisions require special majority in Parliament AND ratification by at least half the state legislatures. States ratify by simple resolution — no special majority needed in state legislatures. |
Examples: Articles 2, 3, 4, 169, 239-A | Applies to: Majority of constitutional provisions — Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, election provisions, etc. | Applies to: Arts 54, 55, 73, 162, 241, Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, Chapter I of Part XI, 7th Schedule, representation of states in Parliament, and Article 368 itself |
5. Step-by-Step Amendment Procedure
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bill introduced | House 1 passes | House 2 passes | State ratification | Presidential assent | Amendment operative |
In either House of Parliament (not in state legislatures) | Special majority — total membership AND 2/3 of present & voting | Same majority. No joint sitting possible if Houses disagree | At least half the state legislatures (for specified provisions only) | President MUST give assent — no power to withhold or veto | Constitution stands amended from date specified in Bill |
- No joint sitting: Unlike ordinary legislation, there is no provision for a joint sitting to resolve a deadlock. If one House disagrees, the Bill fails — this gives the Rajya Sabha a genuine veto over constitutional amendments.
- No Presidential veto: Once passed with the required majority (and ratified by states where required), the President must give assent. There is no power to withhold, return, or pocket veto a constitutional amendment Bill.
- No time limit for state ratification: There is no constitutional time limit within which states must ratify. The amendment Bill remains pending until the requisite number of states ratify.
6. Is It Easy to Amend the Indian Constitution?
This is one of the most interesting comparative constitutional law questions. Is the Indian Constitution easy or difficult to amend? The honest answer is: it depends on which provision you are looking at, and compared to which constitution.
6.1 India Is Neither Fully Rigid Nor Fully Flexible
Constitutional scholars classify constitutions as rigid (hard to amend — like the USA, which requires two-thirds of Congress plus three-fourths of states) or flexible (easy to amend — like the UK, which can change constitutional conventions by ordinary legislation). India's Constitution sits firmly in the middle. Dr. Ambedkar called it "partly rigid and partly flexible."
| Arguments for: relatively easy | Arguments against: not very easy |
|---|---|
Why it is not very hard No absolute veto for states — states ratify by simple majority and only for specified provisions. Presidential assent is automatic. Simple majority suffices for many provisions. The special majority threshold (2/3 of present and voting) is easier to meet than 2/3 of total membership. India has made 106 amendments in 74 years — a very high rate. The USA has had only 27 amendments in 235 years. A single-party majority in Parliament can comfortably amend most provisions alone. | Why it has real teeth Special majority is genuinely demanding — more than a simple parliamentary majority. The Rajya Sabha has a real veto — a government with Lok Sabha majority but not Rajya Sabha majority cannot amend. Federal provisions require state ratification. The Basic Structure doctrine is the most powerful brake of all — certain amendments are simply unconstitutional regardless of how many votes they get. |
6.2 The Real Check — The Basic Structure Doctrine
The most significant limit on constitutional amendment in India is not procedural but substantive — the Basic Structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973). Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, but it cannot amend or destroy the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution.
The Basic Structure doctrine means that no amendment — however large the majority, however complete the procedure — can validly do certain things. An amendment that tried to abolish judicial review, or turn India into a monarchy, or eliminate elections, would be unconstitutional even if passed unanimously. This is an extraordinary judicial check that has no parallel in most democracies.
7. The Central Tension — Parliament vs Basic Structure
The central tension in Indian constitutional amendment law is between two legitimate principles. On one side: Parliament, elected by the people, should have the power to reshape the Constitution as the people's will changes. On the other side: a constitution's whole purpose is to place certain things beyond the reach of temporary majorities — if everything can be changed by a sufficiently large vote, what is the point of constitutionalism at all?
India's answer — shaped by the Basic Structure doctrine — is that most things can be changed but some things cannot. The identity of the Constitution as a democratic, federal, secular, rights-protecting document is non-negotiable. Within that identity, enormous flexibility exists.
8. Landmark Cases — The Cases That Shaped Amendment Law
9. Some Important Amendments — What They Tell Us
- 1st Amendment (1951) — Added Ninth Schedule; restricted right to property and free speech grounds. Parliament's response to early Supreme Court judgments protecting zamindars from land reform.
- 42nd Amendment (1976) — "Mini Constitution" passed during Emergency. Added socialist, secular, integrity to Preamble; curtailed judicial review; tried to make Parliament supreme. Many provisions struck down later.
- 44th Amendment (1978) — Post-Emergency course correction. Restored rights curtailed during Emergency. Removed right to property from Fundamental Rights (Art 19/31) and made it a constitutional right (Art 300A).
- 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) — Created constitutional framework for Panchayati Raj and Urban Local Bodies. Landmark devolution of power to the third tier of government.
- 86th Amendment (2002) — Added Article 21A making free and compulsory education a Fundamental Right for children aged 6–14.
- 101st Amendment (2016) — Introduced GST; created new constitutional framework for goods and services taxation.
- 103rd Amendment (2019) — Added 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Upheld 3:2 by Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).
10. Criticisms of the Amendment Process
| Too easy? | Too difficult? |
|---|---|
The case that it is too easy | The case that it is too difficult |
| A party with a brute majority in both Houses can amend without any opposition support. India has amended 106 times in 74 years vs USA's 27 in 235 years. The Ninth Schedule has been used to insulate hundreds of laws from constitutional challenge. The Emergency period (1975–77) showed how quickly a temporary majority could strip constitutional rights through formal amendments. | The Basic Structure doctrine — judicially created — gives unelected judges a veto over constitutional change that elected majorities cannot override. The Rajya Sabha can permanently block amendments with massive popular support. The doctrine is vague — nobody knows exactly what is in the Basic Structure until the Supreme Court tells us, creating legal uncertainty. |
11. Conclusion — A Living Constitution with Guarded Gates
The Indian Constitution's amendment process reflects a careful constitutional philosophy: democracy requires that the people's representatives can reshape their governing document, but constitutionalism requires that some things remain beyond the reach of temporary majorities.
The answer to "is it easy to amend the Indian Constitution?" is genuinely: it depends. For most provisions, a determined government with a comfortable majority in both Houses can amend relatively quickly. For federal provisions, state cooperation is needed. For the Basic Structure — the very soul of the Constitution — no majority, however large, can compel an amendment.
That last limitation is not found in the text of Article 368. It was created by judges in 1973. And that, perhaps, is the most remarkable feature of Indian constitutional law — the courts have given the Constitution a self-defending quality that the framers themselves did not fully build in. For law students, understanding Article 368, the three methods of amendment, and the Basic Structure doctrine gives you the tools to engage with the deepest questions of constitutional theory: Who owns the constitution? Can democracy be used to vote away democracy? Is judicial review of constitutional amendments guardianship or judicial imperialism? These are questions without easy answers — but they are the questions that make constitutional law endlessly fascinating.
Comments 0