IASPage

Amendment of the Constitution & Basic Structure ​

📊 High-Yield Data & Statistical Fact Sheet
  • Constitutional Ambit: Vested in Part XX (Article 368), outlining the "constitutive power" of Parliament to amend the Constitution by addition, variation, or repeal of any provision.
  • RIGIDITY vs FLEXIBILITY Balance: The Indian Constitution balances absolute rigidity (US model) with absolute flexibility (UK model), as shown by its 100+ amendments. Amending frequency peaked in the 1970s (21 amendments) due to executive-judiciary clashes.
  • Amending Mechanics (Article 368):
    • No Joint Sitting: If a deadlock occurs between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha over a Constitutional Amendment Bill, the bill falls automatically; there is no provision for a joint sitting (unlike ordinary bills under Article 108).
    • No Pocket/Suspensive Presidential Veto: Under the 24th CAA, 1971, the President must give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill. The President cannot withhold assent or return the bill to Parliament.
    • No State Launch: Amending bills can only be introduced in either House of Parliament, not in any State Legislature.
  • Federal Clauses Ratification: Amendments that touch on federal structures (e.g., Article 368 itself, Presidential elections, SC/HC boundaries, 7th Schedule Lists) require additional ratification by the legislatures of at least half of the states by a Simple Majority.
  • The Kesavananda Bharati (1973) Benchmark: A 13-judge bench established the Basic Structure Doctrine by a 7–6 majority, ruling that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot destroy the core framework or identity of the Constitution.

Number of Constitutional Amendments by Decade

Loading chart...

1. THREE-TIER AMENDMENT PROCEDURES ​

THREE-TIER AMENDMENT PROCEDURES ​

THREE-TIER AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Analyze key facts and concepts related to THREE-TIER AMENDMENT PROCEDURES. -

The Constitution can be amended in three distinct ways, depending on the nature of the provisions:


```text [Constitutional Amendment Routes] / | \ [Simple Majority] [Special Majority] [Special Majority + State Consent] (Outside Art 368) (Under Art 368) (Federal Clauses Under Art 368) ```
Detail the concepts and significance of I. Simple Majority (Outside Article 368).

I. Simple Majority (Outside Article 368)

Requires only a majority of members present and voting in each House of Parliament. Examples include:

- Admission or establishment of new states, and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states (Articles 2 & 3). - Creation or abolition of second chambers (Legislative Councils) in states (Article 169). - Quorum requirements in Parliament, and salaries and allowances of MPs. - Use of English or official languages in Parliament. - Rules of procedure in Parliament, and parliamentary privileges. - Citizenship acquisition and termination rules. - Second Schedule provisions (salaries of President, Governors, Judges).
Detail the concepts and significance of II. Special Majority (Under Article 368).

II. Special Majority (Under Article 368)

Requires a majority of the total membership of each House (irrespective of vacancies or absentees) and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Examples include:

- Fundamental Rights (Part III). - Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV). - All other provisions not covered by the first or third categories.
Detail the concepts and significance of III. Special Majority + State Ratification (Federal Clauses under Article 368).

III. Special Majority + State Ratification (Federal Clauses under Article 368)

Requires a Special Majority in Parliament, plus ratification by the legislatures of at least half of the states via a Simple Majority vote before the bill is presented to the President. Examples include:

- The election of the President and its manner (Articles 54 & 55). - Extent of the executive power of the Union and the States (Articles 73 & 162). - The Supreme Court and High Courts (Part V Chapter IV, Part VI Chapter V). - Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (7th Schedule Lists). - The representation of states in Parliament (4th Schedule). - The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council (Article 279A). - Article 368 itself.

2. EVOLUTION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE ​

EVOLUTION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE ​

EVOLUTION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
Analyze key facts and concepts related to EVOLUTION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE. -

The conflict between parliamentary amending power and judicial review evolved through several landmark Supreme Court judgments:


| Case Name & Year | Key Ruling & Judicial Principle | Constitutional Impact |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Shankari Prasad Case (1951) | Ruled that the power to amend under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. "Law" under Article 13 only refers to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments. | Validated the 1st CAA, 1971, allowing land reform acts. |

| Golak Nath Case (1967) | Reversed the Shankari Prasad ruling; declared that Fundamental Rights are given a "transcendental and immutable position" and cannot be amended or taken away by Parliament. | Parliament reacted by passing the 24th CAA, 1971, declaring that it could amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368. |

| Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) | Overruled Golak Nath; declared that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, but cannot alter, destroy, or cede the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. | Established the "Basic Structure Doctrine" as the ultimate check on majoritarian amending power. |

| Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975) | Struck down the 39th CAA (which placed the election of the PM and Speaker beyond judicial review), ruling that Judicial Review is an essential element of the Basic Structure. | Reinforced the supremacy of the Basic Structure over explicit amendments. |

| Minerva Mills Case (1980) | Struck down Section 55 of the 42nd CAA (which had asserted unlimited amending power for Parliament and barred judicial review), declaring that limited amending power is itself a basic feature. | Reaffirmed the balance between FRs and DPSPs, and the supremacy of Judicial Review. |

| I.R. Coelho Case (2007) | Ruled that there is no blanket immunity for laws in the Ninth Schedule. Laws added after 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda judgment date) are subject to judicial review and can be struck down if they violate the Basic Structure. | Stopped the executive from using the Ninth Schedule to bypass judicial checks. |


QUICK REVISION BOX ​

  • Amending Ambit: Part XX (Article 368) governs the process; only Parliament can launch a bill.
  • No Deadlock Resolution: No joint sittings are permitted for Article 368 bills.
  • Assent Mandatory: Under the 24th CAA, 1971, the President must sign amendment bills.
  • Federal Clauses: Require consent of half of the states via Simple Majority.
  • Basic Structure Origin: Established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) by a 7–6 majority.
  • Amending Limit: Minerva Mills (1980) ruled that Parliament's power to amend is limited and cannot be turned into an unlimited power.
  • Ninth Schedule Review: I.R. Coelho (2007) subjects post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to Basic Structure scrutiny.
  • Basic Features: Constitution supremacy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, separation of powers, and free/fair elections.

Notes updated up to March 2026. Sources: Parliament of India, Supreme Court Cases (Kesavananda, I.R. Coelho).

Copyright © 2021-PRESENT ias.schule