Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
OBJECTIVES
The objectives will clearly tell us what we intend to find out about the research project. Here are
the objectives for the topic “Amendment of Constitution”:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The nature of the project is purely descriptive and analytical. It is purely based on data collected
from books, acts, journals and web sources.
Books and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this project
a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a
particular provision of law.
Page | 1
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of a country is the fundamental law of the land— the basis on which all other
laws are made and enforced. It has been described as a “superior or supreme law” with “perhaps
greater efficiency and authority”, and “higher sanctity”, and more permanence than ordinary
legislation. Nevertheless, an adequate provision of its amendment is considered implicit in the
very nature of a Constitution.
Constitutions are usually classified as ‘flexible’ or ‘rigid’ depending upon the process through
which they can be amended. Prof. A.V. Dicey defines two types of Constitutions—the flexible as
‘one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and
in the same manner by one and the same body’, and the rigid Constitutions as ‘one under which
certain laws generally known as constitutional or fundamental laws, cannot be changed in the
same manner as ordinary laws’
Explaining why it was necessary to introduce an element of flexibility in the Constitution, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru observed in the Constituent Assembly: While we want this Constitution to be
as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, nevertheless there is no permanence in
Constitutions. There should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent,
you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people. Therefore, it has to be
flexible.… In any event, we should not make a Constitution, such as some other great countries
have, which are so rigid that they do not and cannot be adapted easily to changing conditions.
Today especially, when the world is in turmoil and we are passing through a very swift period of
transition, what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow. Therefore, while we
make a Constitution which is sound and as basic as we can, it should also be flexible….
Page | 2
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
An analysis of the procedure prescribed by article 368 for amendment of the Constitution shows
that:
Page | 3
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
(i) an amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of
Parliament;
(ii) the Bill so initiated must be 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
of that House present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of
disagreement between the two Houses;
(iii) when the Bill is so passed, it must be presented to the President who shall give his
assent to the Bill;
(iv) where the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned
in the proviso to article 368, it must be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-
half of the State .
(vi) no specific time limit for the ratification of an amending Bill by the State
Legislatures is laid down; the resolutions ratifying the proposed amendment should,
however, be passed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent;
(vii) the Constitution can be amended: (1) only by Parliament; and (2) in the manner
provided. Any attempt to amend the Constitution by a Legislature other than Parliament
and in a manner different from that provided for will be void and inoperative.
AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
The machinery of amendment should be like safety valve, so devised as neither to operate the
machine with too great facility nor to require in order to set in motion, an accumulation of force
sufficient to explode it. The Constitution makers have, therefore, kept the balance between the
danger of having non-amendable Constitution and a Constitution which was easily amended.
One can therefore, safely say that the Indian federation will not suffer from the faults of the
rigidity of legalism. Its distinguishing feature is that it is a flexible federation.
Page | 4
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
For the purpose of the amendment, the provisions of the Constitution fall under three categories.
The procedure of each category is laid down in the Constitution. The categories are:
A Bill to amend the Constitution may be introduced in either houses of the Parliament. It may be
passed by each House by a majority of the total membership to that House and by a majority of
not less than two-third of the members of that House present and voting. The Bill, after it has
been passed by both the Houses and, if the amendment is as such as requires ratification by
States, after it has been ratified by the required number of States, must be presented to the
President for his assent and if he gives his assent to the Bill then the Constitution stands
amended. In other respects, the normal procedure of each House of Parliament is to be followed
so far as that may be applicable consistently with the express provisions of Article 368. But a
bill which seeks to amend the provisions mentioned in Article 368 requires in addition to the
special majority mentioned above the ratification by one-half of the States.
An amendment may specify the date of its commencement or leave it to the President to bring it
into effect from such date as he may notify.
The power to amend the Constitution conferred upon the Parliament includes the power to
amend Article 1 and that logically would include the power to cede national territory in favour of
a foreign territory.
Article 368, however, does not constitute the complete Code. The process of amending the
Constitution is the legislative process governed by the rules of that process.
In U.S.A., amendment of the Constitution may be proposed only by Congress, with the approval
of two-third majority of both Houses or a convention summoned on an application from two-
third members of both Houses. The proposed amendment must subsequently be ratified by at
least three-fourths of the total number of the State Legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths
of the total number of States.
Page | 6
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
In Australia, the Constitution can be altered only by an Act passed by an absolute majority in
both Houses, or in case on House refuses to pass it, by an Act passed by an absolute majority in
either Houses , for the second time, after an interval of three months. But in either case, the Act
must be subjected to a referendum in each State. If in a majority of the States, a majority of the
voters approve the amendment, and if a majority of all the voters also approves, it shall be
presented to the Governor General for the Royal assent.
Thus, it is clear that most of the provisions of the Constitution can be amended by an ordinary
legislative process. Only a few provisions which deals with the federal principles require a
special majority plus ratification by States. The procedure to amend these provisions is in
conformity with the federal principles. The procedure to amend the Constitution, is however, not
so difficult as in America or in Australia or in Switzerland.
The question whether the amendment of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution is permissible under Article 368 came before the Supreme Court as early as in 1951
in Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India.1 In that case the validity of the Constitution
(First Amendment) Act, 1951, especially the inclusion of Articles 31-A and 31-B was challenged
in a petition under Article 32. The amendment was challenged on the ground that it purported to
take away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III which fell within the prohibition of Article
13(2) and hence was void. It was argued that State in Article 12 included Parliament and the
word “law” under Article 13(2); therefore, it must include Constitutional amendment. The
Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights,
was contained in Article 368 and that the word law in Article 13(2) did not include an
amendment of the Constitution which was made in the exercise of the constituent and not
legislative power.
Later several other amendments were made in the Constitution of which the Fourth and Seventh
Amendment related to Part III of the Constitution. The Seventeenth Amendment which added
several legislations to the Ninth Schedule making them immune from attack on the ground of
1
AIR 1951 SC 458
Page | 7
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
violation of fundamental rights was challenged in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.2 The
Supreme Court approved the majority judgment given in Shankari Prasad’s case and held that
the words “amendment of the Constitution” means amendment of all the provisions of the
Constitution. Gajendragdkar, C.J. said that if Constitution-makers intended to exclude the
fundamental rights form the scope of the amending powers they would have made a clear
provision in that behalf.
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab3, the validity of the seventeenth Constitutional Amendment
which inserted certain State Acts in the Ninth Schedule was again challenged. The Supreme
Court by a majority of 6 to 5 prospectively overruled its earlier decision in Shankari Prasad and
Sajjan Singh’s cases and held that Parliament had no power from the date of this decision to
amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. The
judgment proceeded on the following reasoning:
a) The Constitution incorporates an implied limitation that the fundamental rights are out of
the reach of the Parliament. The Constitution has given by its scheme a place of
permanence to the fundamental freedoms. The incapacity of the Parliament, therefore, in
exercise of its amending powers to modify, restrict or impair fundamental freedoms in
Part III arises from the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms.
b) Article 368 does not contain the power to amend but merely provides the procedure for
amending the Constitution. The power to amend the Constitution is a legislative process
and is included within the plenary legislative power of Parliament.
c) The power to amend Constitution by should be found in the plenary legislative powers of
the Parliament. The residuary power of the legislation certainly takes in the power to
amend the Constitution.
d) Amendment to the Constitution, either under Article 368 or under other articles, are made
only by Parliament by following the legislative process adopted by it in making other
laws. An amendment in the Constitution can be nothing be nothing but “law”. The word
“law” in Article 13(2) includes the Constitutional amendments and therefore, the
fundamental rights are outside the powers of amendment given to Parliament under
2
AIR 1965 SC 854
3
AIR 1971 SC 1643
Page | 8
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
Article 368, if such an amendment seeks to abridge or take away any of the fundamental
rights.
e) If at all the provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights must be amended so as to
curtail those rights, this could be done only by a Constituent Assembly which might be
convoked by Parliament by enacting a law for that purpose in the exercise of its residuary
powers.
In order to remove the difficulties created by the decision of Supreme Court in Golak Nath’s
case, Parliament enacted the (24th Amendment) Act. The Amendment has made the following
amendments:
1) It has added a new clause (4) to Article 13 which provides that ‘nothing in this Article
shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution under Article 368.
2) It substituted a new marginal heading to Article 368 in place of the old heading
“Procedure for amendment of the Constitution”. The new heading is “Power of
Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure thereof”
3) It inserted a new sub-section (1) in article 368 which provides that “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”
4) It substituted the words “ it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent
to the Bill and thereupon” for the words “it shall be presented to the President for his
assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill.” Thus it makes it obligatory for the
President to give his assent to the Bill amending the Constitution.
5) It has added a new clause (3) to Article 368 which provide that “ Nothing in Article 13
shall apply to any amendment made under this article”
Thus the 24th Amendment not only restored the amending power of the Parliament but also
extended its scope by adding the words “to amend by way of the addition or variation or repeal
any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article.”
Page | 9
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
Basic Structure are systematic principles underlying and connecting provisions of the
Constitution. They give coherence and durability to Constitution. These principles are a part of
Constitutional law even if not expressly stated. This doctrine has essentially developed from the
German Constitution. It is not based on literal words. Theory of basic structure is based on the
concept of Constitution identity. The main objective behind this theory is continuity and within
that continuity of identity.
In Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala, the Judges has enumerated certain essentials of basic
structure as follows:
The validity of the above amendments was questioned in Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala4,
wherein a writ petition was filed initially to challenge the validity of the Kerala Land reforms
Act of 1963 as amended in 1969. But during the pendency of the petition the Kerala Act was
4
AIR 1973 SC 1461
Page | 10
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
amended in 1971 and was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 29 th Amendment Act. The
petitioner was not allowed to challenge the validity of the twenty-fourth Amendment Act. On the
behalf of Union of India it was claimed that amending power was unlimited and short of repeal
of the Constitution any change could be affected. On the other hand, the petitioner contended
that the amending powers were wide but not unlimited. Under Article 368 Parliament cannot
destroy the “Basic Feature” of the Constitution. This is so because:
All the judges were of the view that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was valid, and that by virtue
of Article 368, as amended by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, Parliament has power to amend
any or all the provisions of the Constitution including those relating to the fundamental rights.
However, the individual freedom secured to the citizens was regarded by all the six judges as a
basic feature of the structure or framework of the Constitution which could not be altered or
destroyed by invoking the power of amendment under Article 368.
As regards to the amending power contained in Article 368, six judges held that there are
inherent or implied limitations on the amending powers of the Parliament and Article 368 does
Page | 11
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
not confer power to amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy the essential elements or
basic features of the Constitution. The word “amendment” postulated that the old Constitution
must survive without loss of indemnity and it must be retained through in the amended form and,
therefore, the power does not include the power to destroy or abrogate the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution.
After the decision of Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti case, the Constitutional (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976, was passed which added two new clauses, namely Clause (4) and (5) to
Article 368. Clause (4) provided that “ No amendment of this Constitution (including the
provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether before or
after the commencement of Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976
shall be called in question in any court on any ground”. And Clause (5) provide that “For the
removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the
constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions
of this Constitution under this article PART XXI TEMPORARY, TRANSITIONAL AND
SPECIAL PROVISIONS” thus, by inserting clause (5) it made it clear that even the “basic
feature” of the Constitution can be amended.
This amendment removed the limitation imposed on the amending powers of the Parliament by
ruling of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti case. It was said that the theory of basic
structure as invented by Supreme Court is vague and will create difficulties. The amendment was
intended to rectify this situation.
It was argues that the amending body under Article 368 has the full constituent power. In other
words, Parliament acts in the same capacity as the Constituent Assembly when exercising the
Power of Amendment under Article 368.
Page | 12
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
ii. The assertion of parliamentary supremacy is based on wrong nations. The supremacy of
Parliament is the main characteristic of British Constitution, the Parliamentary
supremacy means the Parliament has both the constituent power and ordinary law-
making powers. It means that there is no distinction in England between constitutional
law and ordinary law.
Thus, the Constitutional Amendments made under Article 368 can still be challenged on the
ground that they are destructive of the “basic feature of the Constitution”
CONCLUSION
Page | 13
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page | 14