MODULE - IX

Amendment to the Constitution

• Doctrine of Basic Structure

• Need for Amendment,

• Types of Amendment

• Major Amendments
 • Indian Constitution has undergone 105 amendments. [105th Amendment –
October 2021
• Conferred power on the Union Parliament to amend the Constitution.

TYPES OF AMENDMENTS [Art.368]

(a) Amendment by Simple Majority
(b) Amendment by Special Majority
(c) Amendment by special majority in both Houses of Parliament plus ratification by
at least half of the State Legislatures.

[I] Amendment by Simple Majority

(i) Amendment by Parliament – vote of members present, voting in both the houses, it’s a
process adopted to make ordinary statutes, it can be introduced in either of the houses
(ii) Amendment at the instance of the States – with the consultation of the states.
(iii) Amendment by State Legislatures
A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority of the two houses of
Parliament outside the scope of Article 368.
These provisions include:
• Admission or establishment of new states.
• Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states.
• Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.
• Second Schedule-emoluments,
• Allowances, privileges and so on of the President, the governors, the Speakers, judges, etc.
• Quorum in Parliament.
• Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.
• Rules of procedure in Parliament.
• Privileges of the Parliament, its members and its committees.
• Use of the English language in Parliament.
• Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.
• Conferment of more jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
• Citizenship - acquisition and termination.
• Elections to Parliament and state legislatures.
• Delimitation of constituencies.
• Union territories
• Fifth Schedule-administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes.
• Sixth Schedule-administration of tribal areas.
[II] Amendment by special majority
• Procedures:
(a) This will be initiated only by the introduction of the bill, in either of the house
(b) Total membership and 2/3rd majority,
(c) shall be sent for President’s assent
(d) After Assent by the President, the amendment will be enforced.

• The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a

special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50
percent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of
the members of each House present and voting.
• The special majority is required only for voting at the third reading stage of the bill
• The provisions which can be amended by this way include
(i) Fundamental Rights;
(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and
(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third categories.
[III] Amendment by special Majority plus ratification by States
• Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the federal structure of
the polity can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament and also with the
consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority.
• If one or some or all the remaining states take no action on the bill, it does not
matter; the moment half of the States give their consent, the formality is
completed.
• There is no time limit within which the states should give their consent to the bill.
• The following provisions can be amended in this way:
• Election of the President and its manner. [Art. 54 & 55]
• Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states. [Art. 73 & 162]
• Supreme Court and high courts. [Art. 124 – 147, Art. 214 – 231]
• Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states. [Art. 245 – 255]
• Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.
• Representation of States in Parliament.
• Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure (Article 368 itself).
PROCEDURE FOR THE AMENDMENT [Art. 368]
• An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the
purpose in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha) and not in the state legislatures.
• The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior
permission of the president.
• The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority (that is, more than
50 per cent) of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of
the House present and voting.
• Each House must pass the bill separately.
• In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting
of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
• If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also be ratified by the
legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of the
House present and voting.
• After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state legislatures, where
necessary, the bill is presented to the president for assent.
• The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor
return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament
• After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment act) and the
Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.
SCOPE OF AMENDABILITY
• The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including
the Fundamental Rights but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• However, the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify as to what constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution.
• From the various judgements, the following have emerged as ‘basic features’ of the Constitution:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Welfare state (socio-economic justice).
3. Principle of equality
4. Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity.
5. Judicial review
6. Free and fair elections
7. The secular character of the Constitution.
8. Freedom and dignity of the individual
9. Independence of Judiciary
10. Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
11. Parliamentary system
12. Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
13. Federal character of the Constitution
14. Rule of law
15. Effective access to justice
16. Unity and integrity of the nation
17. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
18. Reasonableness
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
• Doctrine of Prospective Overruling originated in the American Judicial System.
• The literal meaning of the term ‘overruling’ is to overturn or set aside a
precedent by expressly deciding that it should no longer be controlling law.
• Similarly ‘prospective’ means operative or effective in the future.
• So, combined together, prospective overruling means construing an earlier
decision in such a way that it would not have a binding effect to the parties of the
original suit or to the cases decided on the basis of that judgment, and yet
changing the law, applying it only prospectively to the future cases.
• For example, if principle A is laid down in the case of X v. Y and later on the court
disagrees with the Principle A, it changes the principle prospectively without
affecting the judgment of X v. Y and thus the new principle will apply only to the
future cases.
• To illustrate, in very simple words, the implication of the invocation of the
doctrine is that the decision of such a case would not have retrospective
operation but would operate only in the future, i.e., have only prospective
operation.
Different views of this doctrine
• There are two views on the doctrine of Prospective Overruling.
• The first view is by Blackstone who believes that the Doctrine of Stare
Decisis should be followed the courts in the administration of justice. Thus
a precedent once set should be adopted by the lower courts also in their
judicial processes and it must be left to the judges to decide which decision
shall be applied retrospectively and which shall be applied prospectively.
Thus it can be interpreted that there is no such requirement of this
doctrine as the judges can decide accordingly keeping in view the question
in hand. This view is totally against the doctrine of Prospective Overruling.
•
• The second view is that of Cardozo J.
who is known as the originator and
propounder of Prospective overruling.
He laid down this doctrine in the case
of Northern Railway v. Sunburst Oil
and Refining Co, where he refused to
make the ruling retroactive. He has
specifically mentioned that
“This is not a case where a court, in
overruling an earlier decision, has given
to the new ruling a retroactive bearing,
and thereby has made invalid what was
valid in the doing.”
• The basic objective of prospective overruling
is to overrule a precedent without having a
retrospective effect.
• According to Cardozo J. if this doctrine is not
given effect it will wash away the whole
dynamic nature of law, it will be against the
concept of judicial activism. Cardozo J. was
of the view that the law should keep up with
the changes occurring in the society, the law
has to be dynamic and not static. If in a new
and changed society, the citizens are bound
by an old law it will lead to grave injustice.
The citizens whose lives are bound by the
law of land should be given laws according
to changed needs. Therefore the doctrine of
Prospective Overruling is an important tool in
the hand of judiciary to give fair and timely
justice to its citizens.
• The essence of prospective overruling is that the Supreme Court lays
down the parameters within which a law laid down in a case which
overrules a previous judgment has to operate. The whole purpose is
to avoid reopening of settled issues and also prevent multiplicity of
proceedings; in effect, this means that all actions prior to the
declaration do not stand invalidated.

• Also, as laid down in the case of Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999), all the
subordinate courts are bound to apply the law to future cases only.
There may also be instances where the Supreme Court may specify
the date when the declaration shall come into effect thereby not
disturbing the decisions taken before such a date.
Prospective Overruling in India
• The doctrine of prospective overruling was for the first time adopted in the case
of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967).

Propositions laid down in Golak Nath’s Case

• Because it was the first time that the Court was applying a doctrine which had
evolved in a different system of law so the Court laid down certain provisions
restricting the application of the doctrine in the Indian system. It was laid down
that
(1) The doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in matters arising
under our Constitution;
(2) It can be applied only by highest court of the country, i.e., The Supreme Court
as it has the constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the Courts as it
has India; [but the applicability has been extended the interpretation of the
ordinary statutes as well now . Eg., Waman Rao V/S UOI etc]
(3) The scope of the retrospective operation of the law declared by the Supreme
Court superseding its earlier decisions is left to its discretion to be moulded in
accordance with- the justice of the cause or matter before it.
• The family of Henry and William Golak Nath held over 500 acres of
farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. In the phase of the 1953 Punjab Security
and Land Tenures Act, the state government held that the brothers could
keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants and the rest
was declared 'surplus'. This was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the
courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family
filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the
ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold
property and practice any profession (Articles 19(f) and (g)) and to
equality before and equal protection of the law (Article 14). They also
sought to have the Seventeenth Amendment – which had placed the
Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule – declared ultra vires.

• The issues involved were whether Amendment is a “law” under the

meaning of Article 13(3)(a), and whether Fundamental Rights can be
amended or not.
• The doctrine has been applied in order to validate the 1st amendment,
4th amendment and 17th amendment of the constitution.
• The Court observed that the doctrine has been accepted in America in
all branches of law including Constitutional Law. That, it was
indisputable that the court could overrule its earlier decisions. Also,
there would not be any valid reasons as to why court should not
restrict its ruling to the future.
• This doctrine is modern in operation and is suitable for the fast
changing society.
• To nullify the effect of Golaknath decision, the 24th amendment Act, 1971
was enacted [Art. 368 – nothing in Art. 13 shall apply to an amendment
made under this Article].
• The 24th amendment only restored amending power of the Parliament,
but also, extended its scope by declaring it as constitutional power.

• Sankari Prasad V/S Union of India (1951) – Ordinary Laws and

Amendments are different.

• Golak Nath V/S State of Punjab (1967) – No difference between Ordinary

Laws and Amendments.
• Further in the case of Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal (2003) , the Court
defined prospective overruling as
“Under the doctrine of “prospective overruling” the law declared by the Court applies
to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the cases which have
attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise work hardship to those
who had trusted to its existence.”

• Furthermore, it has been laid down that the prospective declaration of law is a
device innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of the settled issues and to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty
and avoidable litigation. By the very object of the prospective declaration of law, it
is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law prior to its date
of declaration are validated. This is done in the larger public interest. Therefore, the
subordinate forums which are legally bound to apply the declaration of law made
by this Court are also duty bound to apply such cases which would arise in future
only.
• The doctrine of prospective overruling also finds reference in the case
of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India often know as the Mandal
Commission Case.
• In this case, Justice Jeevan Reddy decided that the ruling in this case
would be effective after five years from the date of the ruling. The
Court thus postponed giving effect to the ruling for five years from
the date of the judgment. This case not only sees the extension of the
application of the doctrine but even the elongation of the time period
when the judgment would be effective.
Criticisms
• Eminent Indian jurist HM Seervai has been critical of the doctrine of
prospective overruling or invalidity in the second edition his book
Constitutional Law of India. He is basically against the uncritical
adoption of the doctrine into our Constitutional System as he thinks
that it might cause radical changes in the interpretation of the
Supreme most law of the land and also in the judicial process in the
country.

• His basic criticism is against the adoption of this doctrine into our
judicial system as he feels that there are fundamental differences in
the roles assigned to the Supreme Court of India under the
Constitution as against the American Supreme Court and hence a
doctrine originated there cannot be imported into our system.
Doctrine of Basic Structure
• The basic structure (or doctrine) of the Constitution of India applies only to
constitutional amendments, which states that the Parliament cannot destroy or
alter the basic features of the Indian Constitution.

• The constitution empowers the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make
laws within their respective jurisdiction.
• Bills to amend the constitution can only be introduced in the Parliament, but this
power is not absolute.
• If the Supreme Court finds any law made by the Parliament inconsistent with the
Constitution, it has the power to declare that law to be invalid.
• Thus, to preserve the ideals and philosophy of the original constitution, the
Supreme Court has laid down the basic structure doctrine. According to the
doctrine, the Parliament cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the
doctrine.
Evolution of the Basic Structure
• The word "Basic Structure" is not mentioned in the Constitution of India.
The concept developed gradually with the interference of the judiciary
from time to time to protect the basic rights of the people and the ideals
and the philosophy of the constitution.

• The First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged in the

Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case. The amendment was challenged
on the ground that it violates the Part-III of the Constitution and therefore,
should be considered invalid. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament,
under Article 368, has the power to amend any part of the constitution
including fundamental rights. The Court gave the same ruling in Sajjan
Singh Vs State of Rajasthan case in 1965.
• In Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case in 1967, the Supreme Court
overruled its earlier decision. The Supreme Court held that the
Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the constitution as the
fundamental rights are transcendental and immutable. According to the
Supreme Court ruling, Article 368 only lays down the procedure to
amend the constitution and does not give absolute powers to the
parliament to amend any part of the constitution.

• The Parliament, in 1971, passed the 24th Constitution Amendment Act.

The act gave the absolute power to the parliament to make any changes
in the constitution including the fundamental rights. It also made it
obligatory for the President to give his assent on all the Constitution
Amendment bills sent to him.
• In 1973, in Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme
Court upheld the validity of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act by
reviewing its decision in Golaknath case. The Supreme Court held that
the Parliament has power to amend any provision of the constitution,
but doing so, the basic structure of the constitution is to be
maintained. But the Apex Court did not had any clear definition of
the basic structure. It held that the "basic structure of the
Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional
amendment". In the judgement, some of the basic features of the
Constitution, which were listed by the judges.
3 stages in Basic Structure theory:

1. Pre Keshavananda Position – No mention of Basic Structure

2. Keshavananda Decision – Basic Structure theory proposed

3. Post Keshavananda – Basic structure theory strengthened and New

dimension is been added
I STAGE - Major cases before Keshavananda
• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs. Union of India [AIR 1951 SC 458]
• Parliament has power to amend FRs
• ‘LAW’ in Art. 13 doesn’t include amendment of Constitution
• Amendment by way of Art. 368 done in exercise of constituent power, not legislative power.

• Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845]

• Shankari Prasad was upheld by majority
• Two judges dissented – ‘Certain basic features are scared’

• Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1967 SC 1643]

• Fundamental Rights cannot be amended.
• Any amendment violating fundamental rights is not allowed in the scheme of Indian Constitution [through this
case the different opinions and arguments started]

Golak Nath effect and 24th Constitutional Amendment Act

• In Golak Nath, Subba Rao CJ – said that “Art. 368 provides only the ‘procedure to amend the
constitution’, and not the ‘power to amend’ [Prior to 1971, Art. 368 had a marginal note as
‘PROCEDURE TO AMEND’ only]
• Due to the difficulties created in Golak Nath, the Parliament passed the 24th amendment Act in
1971 and made significant changes to Art. 368 and Art. 13 and nullified the Golak Nath effect.
II STAGE – Birth of Basic Structure theory
• Validity of several land reforms Acts were questioned along with 24th,
25th and 29th amendments to the Constitution.
• Petitioners urged that certain essential elements and features were
sacred and could not be destroyed.
• They said these basic features related to human rights and fundamental
rights which people gave to themselves and are inviolable.
• There were 13 judges wrote 11 different judgements
• The judgement is famous for its length and varying opinions within the
judges
• Very difficult to arrive at the conclusion about the end effect of the
judgement
Decision
• All judges held that 24th Amendment was valid
• All judges held that Parliament has power to amend any or all provisions of
Constitution including FRs.
• However 7 judges held that the parliament doesn’t have power to amend the
‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

• As per Shelat and Grover –

• Basic structure is not a vague concept. It could only be illustrative and could not be
catalogued.
• According to them the basic structure includes –
• Supremacy of the constitution
• Republican and democratic form of Government and Sovereignty of the Country
• Secular and federal character
• Demarcation of powers between 3 organs
• The dignity of the Individual
• Unity and integrity of the nation
• What constitutes (contents) Basic Structure?
• As per CJ Sikri –
• Supremacy of Constitution
• Republican and Democratic form of Government
• Secular character of Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Federal Character

• As per Hegde and Mukerjee -

• Sovereignty of India
• Democratic character of our polity
• Unity of our country
• Individual freedoms of citizens
• Welfare state and egalitarian society
• As per Jaganmohan Reddy –
• Basic structure could be implied from the Preamble.
• In his opinion, a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic, Parliamentary Democracy and
the three organs of the State constituted the basic structure.

• As per Khanna .J –
• Categorically said that the Right to Property was not the basic structure of the
Constitution.

• FACT: it would not be easy to identify with certainty, what constitute the
Basic Structure.
• Therefore, presently it is the Supreme Court, is the one which determines
finally, as to what constitute the framework and basic structure of the
Constitution. [Supreme Court assumed a Constitutional Power]
III STAGE – Post Keshavananda
Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain [AIR 1975 SC 2299]
• Allahabad HC had invalidated the election of Indira Gandhi on the ground of corrupt practices
• She appealed to SC and in the meanwhile, Parliament passed the 39th Amendment to nullify the decision
of Allahabad HC.
• The 39th Amendment was questioned before the SC.
• SC held that the amendment violated ‘free and fair election (democracy) and judicial review.
• The amendment was strike-down.

• Chandrachud .J took the opportunity to expand the scope of basic structure by identifying 4 basic
features:
1. Sovereign democratic republic status
2. Equality
3. secularism, freedom of conscience and religion
4. Government of laws, not of men

J. Chandrachud - explained that for determining whether a particular feature of the Constitution was part of
its basic structure: one has perforce to examine in each individual case, the place of the particular feature in
the scheme of our Constitution, its object and purpose and the consequences of its denial on the integrity of
the Constitution as a fundamental instrument of the country governance.
The following features have so far, been declared to constitute the basic structure of the
Constitution so as to be beyond the amending power of the Parliament under Art. 368 –

• Supremacy of the Constitution [Keshavananda Bharati case – 1973]

• Republican and democratic form of Government [PUCL case – 2003, R.N Seshan’s Case –
1995, Raj Narain’s case – 1975]
• Secular character of the Constitution/State [I.R. Coelho’s case – 2007, S.R. Bommai’s
case – 1994]
• Federal character of the Constitution & Sovereignty of India [kuldip Nayar’s case – 2006]
• Judicial Review [Minarva Mill’s case – 1980]
• Free and fair election [Raj Narain’s case]
• Rule of law [I.R. Coelho’s case]
• Right to equality [Mandal Commission Case – 2000]
• Democracy [PUCL – 2003]
• Separation of powers [Keshavananda Bharathi’s case] and independent Judiciary [ State
of Bihar V/S Bal Mukund Sah – 2000]
Important Supreme Court Decisions
Case
Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India, 1951
Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1965
Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab, 1967
Kesavananda Bharti Vs. State of Kerala,1971
Indira Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain, 1975
Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India, 1980
Kihoto hollohan Vs. Zachillhu, 1992
Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992
S.R Bommai vs Union of India, 1994
Decision by the Supreme Court
The Parliament, under Article 368, has power to amend any
part of the constitution
The Parliament, under Article 368, has power to amend any
part of the constitution
The Parliament is not powered to amend the Part III
(Fundamental Rights) of the constitution
The Parliament can amend any provision, but can't dilute the
basic structure
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its concept of basic structure
The concept of basic structure was further developed by
adding 'judicial review' and the 'balance between
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles' to the basic
features
'Free and fair elections' was added to the basic features
'Rule of law, was added to the basic features
Federal structure, unity and integrity of India, secularism,
socialism, social justice and judicial review were reiterated as
basic features
IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS
First Amendment Act, 1951
• Empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially
and economically backward classes.
• Provided for the saving of laws providing for the acquisition of estates, etc.
• Added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reforms and other laws included in it
from the judicial review. After Article 31, Articles 31A and 31B were inserted.

7th Amendment Act, 1956

• The Seventh Amendment brought about the most comprehensive changes so far
in the Constitution. This amendment was designed to implement the State
Re-organisation Act.
• The Second and Seventh schedules were substantially amended for the purpose of
the States Reorganization Act.
24th Amendment Act 1971
• It amended Article 13 and 368 with a view to removing all possible doubts regarding the
power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereof.

26th Amendment Act 1971

• Abolished the privy purses and privileges of the former rulers of princely states.

42nd Amendment Act 1976

• It is considered as a revision of Constitution
• Altogether 52 articles and 7th Schedule has been amended.
• The word ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ has been added to Preamble
• Part IV-A [Fundamental Duty] has been added
• DPSP [Art.32 (writs) , 42 (Provision for just and humane conditions of work and
maternity relief) and 43 (protection of workers)] changed
• Changes occurred in Union and State executive, legislative and judiciary.
• 7th Schedule, which describes 3 lists has been changed
• Parliament and State Legislatures: The life of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative
Assemblies was extended from 5 to 6 years.

• Executive: It amended Article 74 to State explicitly that the President shall act in
accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers in the discharge of his functions.

• Judiciary: The 42nd Amendment Act inserted Article 32A in order to deny the Supreme
Court the power to consider the Constitutional validity of the State law.
• Another new provision, Article 131A, gave the Supreme Court an exclusive jurisdiction
to determine question relating to the Constitutional validity of a central laws.
• Article 144A and Article 128A, the creatures of the Constitutional Amendment Act
made further innovation in the area of judicial review of the Constitutionality of
legislation. Under Article 144A, the minimum number of judges of the Supreme Court
to decide a question of Constitutional validity of a Central or State law was fixed as at
least seven and further, this required two-thirds majority of the judges sitting declare
law as unconstitutional. While the power of the High Court to enforce Fundamental
Rights remained untouched, several restrictions were imposed on its power to issue
writs ‘for any other purpose’.
• Federalism: The Act added Article 257A in the Constitution to enable the Centre to
deploy any armed force of the Union, or any other force under its control for dealing with
any grave situation of law and order in any State.

• Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: A major change that was made by42nd
Constitutional Amendment was to give primacy to all Directive Principles over the
Fundamental Rights contained in Articles 14, 19 or 31.
• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment added a few more Directive Principles – free legal
aid, participations of workers in the management of industries, protection for
environment and protection of forests and wildlife of the country.

• Fundamental Duties: The 42nd Amendment Act inserted Article 51-A to create a new
part called IV-A in the Constitution, which prescribed the Fundamental Duties to the
citizens.

• Emergency: Prior to the 42nd Amendment Act, the President could declare an
emergency under Article 352 throughout the country and not in a part of the country
alone. The Act authorized the President to proclaim emergency in any part of the
country.
44nd Amendment Act 1978
• Art.19 (Right to Property) was repealed and added to Art.300A as a legal right.
• Art.352 (National emergency), one of the ground has changed its terminology,
i.e., ‘internal disturbance’ into ‘armed rebellion’.
• Art.356 (State Emergency) duration has been reduced from one year to 6 months
at a time.

52nd Amendment Act, 1985

• The amendment is designed to prevent the scourge of defection of Members of
Parliament and State Legislatures from one political party to another.

61st Amendment Act, 1989

• The 61st Amendment reduces the voting age from 21 years to 18 years for the Lok
Sabha and Assembly election.
73rd Amendment Act, 1992
• April 20,1993 as it got rectification by the State legislatures and was assented to by the President of
India. After notification, the Panchayati Raj Institutions have now got Constitutional legitimacy.
• After part VIII of the Constitution, a separate part IX has been added to the Constitution with the
addition in Article 243A and fresh Schedule called Eleventh Schedule enumerating the powers and
functions of Panchayti Raj Institutions.
• The Act provides for Gram Sabha, a three-tier model of Panchayati Raj, reservation of seats for SCs
and STs in proportion to their population and one-third reservation of seats for women.

74th Amendment Act 1993

• Establishment of Municipalities
• Deals with different types of Municipalities, powers, duration, election, finance etc.
• 12th Schedule was added (lists the 18 subjects related to municipalities)

• The Act provides constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies. After part VIII of the Constitution, a
separate part IXA has been added to the Constitution with the addition in Article 243A and a fresh
schedule called Twelfth schedule enumerating the powers and functions of urban local bodies has
been incorporated.
• The Act provides Municipal Panchayat, Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation, reservation of
seats for SCs and STs in proportion to their population and one-third reservation of seats for
women
76th Amendment Act 1994
• Art. 16(4) - This Amendment Act raises the reservation quota of government jobs
and seats for admission in the educational institutions in favor of socially and
educationally backward classes to 69 per cent in Tamil Nadu.
• Further, the Amendment Act has been included in the 9 th Schedule of the
Constitution to exempt it from the purview of judicial scrutiny
• 9th Schedule (contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged
in courts. Currently, 284 such laws are shielded from judicial review).

86th Amendment Act 2002

• Art.21A [right to education]
• Art.45
• 11th Fundamental Duty
• With a view to making right to free and compulsory education a fundamental
right, the Act inserts a new Article, namely, Article 21A conferring on all children
in the age group of 6 to 14 years the right to free and compulsory education.
• The Act amends in Part-III, Part –IV and Part-IV(A) of the Constitution.
91st Amendment Act 2003
• Art.75 was amended to restrict the total number of ministers, including of PM, to not
more than 15% of total number of members of House of People.
• Art.361B – disqualifications of members to become a minister.

93rd Amendment Act, 2005

• Providing reservation for the socially and educationally backward classes, besides the
Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in private unaided educational institutions.

97th Amendment Act, 2012

• In Part III of the constitution, after the words “or unions” the words “Cooperative
Societies” was added.
• In Part IV a new Article 43Bwas inserted, which says: The state shall endeavour to
promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and
professional management of the co-operative societies”.
• After Part IXA of the constitution, a Part IXB was inserted to accommodate state vs
centre roles.
99th Amendment Act, 2014
• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established by
the Union government of India.

100th Amendment Act, 2015

• It ratified the land boundary agreement between India and Bangladesh.
• The act amended the 1st schedule of the constitution to exchange the
disputed territories occupied by both the nations in accordance with the
1974 bilateral Land Boundary Agreement.
• India received 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (covering 7,110 acres) in the Indian
mainland, while Bangladesh received 111 Indian enclaves (covering 17,160
acres) in the Bangladeshi mainland
101st Amendment Act, 2017
• Introduced the Goods and Services Tax.

102nd Amendment Act, 2018

• Constitutional status to National Commission for Backward Classes.

103rd Amendment Act, 2019

• A maximum of 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs)
of citizens of classes other than the classes mentioned in Article 15(4) &
(5), i.e. Classes other than socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
• Inserted Clause [6] under Article 15 as well as Inserted Clause [6] under
Article 16.