Role of the President in the Constitutional Amendment Process (India)

The amendment of the Indian Constitution is governed by Article 368. Within this process, the President of India plays a formally significant but practically limited role. The extent of presidential power has been clarified through constitutional provisions and multiple Supreme Court judgments.

1. Constitutional Position of the President in Amendments

(A) Before the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971)

Originally, there was some ambiguity regarding whether the President could:

• Withhold assent
• Return the amendment bill
• Exercise discretion

This ambiguity was later removed.

(B) After the 24th Constitutional Amendment

The 24th Amendment made a decisive change:

• The President must give assent to any Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• The amendment bill becomes law only after presidential assent, but this assent is mandatory, not discretionary.

📌 Article 368(2) now clearly states:

“When a Bill has been passed by both Houses, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent.”

So, the President has:

• No veto power
• No discretion to reject
• No power to return the amendment bill

2. Nature of Presidential Role

The President’s role is:

• Formal and ceremonial
• Constitutionally bound
• Non-discretionary
• Final step in the amendment process

The President cannot:

• Alter amendment provisions
• Refuse assent
• Delay assent indefinitely
• Send it back for reconsideration

3. Importance of Presidential Assent

Even though it is mandatory, presidential assent is important because:

• It gives legal validity to the amendment
• It completes the constitutional process
• It signifies executive confirmation of legislative compliance

4. Judicial Interpretation Through Landmark Case Laws

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in defining the scope of constitutional amendments and indirectly clarifying the President’s role.

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

Key Issue:

Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.

Judgment:

• Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Constitutional amendment is a legislative act, not ordinary law.

Relevance to President:

• Reinforced that amendment process is legislative in nature.
• President’s role remains formal once Parliament passes the bill.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

Key Issue:

Validity of 17th Constitutional Amendment affecting property rights.

Judgment:

• Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• However, judges raised concerns about unlimited amendment power.

Relevance:

• Highlighted constitutional flexibility.
• Reinforced President’s non-discretionary assent role in amendments.

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Key Issue:

Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

Judgment:

• Supreme Court overruled earlier decisions.
• Held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

Impact:

• Created constitutional tension.
• Led to 24th Amendment restoring Parliament’s power.

Relevance to President:

• After this case, Parliament clarified presidential assent is mandatory.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Key Issue:

Scope of Parliament’s amending power.

Judgment:

• Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

Relevance:

• Established judicial review over amendments.
• Even though President gives assent, courts can strike down unconstitutional amendments.

5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Key Issue:

Validity of 42nd Constitutional Amendment.

Judgment:

• Reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Limited Parliament’s amending power.

Relevance:

• Strengthened judicial control over amendments.
• President’s assent does not shield unconstitutional amendments.

6. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

Key Issue:

Validity of amendments placing laws in the Ninth Schedule.

Judgment:

• Reiterated Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Introduced “cut-off date” (April 24, 1973).

Relevance:

• Confirmed constitutional amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny even after presidential assent.

7. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Key Issue:

Whether Ninth Schedule laws are immune from judicial review.

Judgment:

• Held that laws violating Basic Structure can be struck down even if in Ninth Schedule.

Relevance:

• Reinforced that presidential assent does not make amendments immune from courts.

5. Final Position of the President in Amendment Process

Today, the President:

• Is the final constitutional authority to formalize an amendment
• Has no discretion in granting assent
• Acts as a constitutional formality rather than a decision-maker

Conclusion

The role of the President in the constitutional amendment process is purely formal after the 24th Amendment, ensuring procedural completion rather than substantive decision-making. Judicial decisions from Shankari Prasad to I.R. Coelho have consistently reinforced that while Parliament has wide amendment powers and the President gives mandatory assent, the Supreme Court retains ultimate authority to protect the Basic Structure of the Constitution.