Amendment Mechanics.
Amendment Mechanics in India
The mechanics of constitutional amendment in India refer to the procedure, scope, and limitations laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution. It governs how the Constitution can be modified, ensuring both flexibility and rigidity in its framework.
1. Constitutional Provision
Article 368 provides:
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Methods of amendment:
Simple Majority – Like ordinary legislation.
Special Majority of Parliament – Article 368(2) requires a majority of total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting.
Special Majority + State Ratification – Required for certain provisions affecting federal structure (Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, etc.).
Presidential Assent – Must be obtained for all constitutional amendments.
2. Types of Amendments (Based on Procedure)
| Type | Procedure |
|---|---|
| Simple Majority | Can be passed like an ordinary law (e.g., changes in Schedule or statutory provisions) |
| Special Majority | Requires majority of total membership + 2/3 present and voting (Articles 54, 55, 73, etc.) |
| Special Majority + State Ratification | Affects federal structure, representation of states, or powers of Union and States |
3. Limitations on Amendment Powers
The Constitution is not absolutely rigid, but there are implicit and explicit limits:
Explicit Limitation:
Some provisions require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Presidential assent is mandatory.
Implicit Limitation (Judicially Recognized):
Basic Structure Doctrine – Parliament cannot alter the Constitution in a way that destroys its “basic structure.”
4. Key Case Laws on Amendment Mechanics
1. **Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
Principle:
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, using Article 368.
The amendment is not a “law” under Article 13; hence, fundamental rights are not automatically protected from amendments.
Significance:
Early affirmation of Parliament’s plenary amendment power.
2. **Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Principle:
Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad.
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend even fundamental rights.
Significance:
Solidified the pre-24th Amendment view.
3. **Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Principle:
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights in a way that abridges them.
Fundamental rights are “transcendental” and cannot be taken away.
Significance:
Overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh to some extent.
Led to 24th Amendment.
4. **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Principle:
Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure, e.g., secularism, democracy, separation of powers.
Significance:
Landmark case limiting absolute amendment powers.
5. **Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Principle:
Reinforced Kesavananda’s principle.
Held that Parliament cannot destroy the democratic structure via amendments.
Significance:
Emphasized judicial review over constitutional amendments.
6. **Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Principle:
Struck down parts of 42nd Amendment violating basic structure.
Emphasized balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Significance:
Strengthened Basic Structure Doctrine as a limitation on amendment mechanics.
7. **Kihota Hollohon v. Zachillhu
Principle:
Clarified parliamentary powers in procedural matters like anti-defection law.
Amendment of the Tenth Schedule upheld under special majority provisions.
Significance:
Shows practical application of amendment mechanics.
5. Judicial Principles Derived
Parliament can amend the Constitution, but subject to Basic Structure.
Fundamental Rights cannot be destroyed by amendments.
Certain amendments require state ratification.
Judicial review of constitutional amendments is essential to prevent abuse.
Amendments affecting federal structure require special majority + state ratification.
6. Flow of Amendment Mechanics
Proposal introduced in either House of Parliament →
Passed by special majority →
State ratification (if required) →
Presidential assent →
Becomes part of Constitution.
Exceptions:
Simple majority for ordinary matters like adjusting schedules or procedure.
7. Conclusion
The mechanics of constitutional amendment in India strike a balance between rigidity and flexibility:
Flexibility → Allows evolution and adaptation through amendments.
Rigidity → Preserves the core constitutional philosophy via Basic Structure Doctrine.
It ensures that Parliament cannot alter the soul of the Constitution, even while retaining significant power to modernize and adapt the law to changing times.
RELATED Blog
comments