The Indian Constitution is designed to be:
Amendable + Stable
It must be capable of adapting to changing social, political and economic conditions while preserving its fundamental constitutional identity.
The Constitution therefore provides formal amendment procedures under:
Article 368
However, Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
The Supreme Court has developed the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
which prevents Parliament from destroying or fundamentally altering the Constitution's basic structure.
Thus:
Constitutional Amendability
Basic Structure Limitation
=
Constitutional Stability with Adaptability
Constitutional amendability means the ability to legally modify the Constitution through a constitutionally prescribed procedure.
Amendment may:
The Constitution is therefore not intended to remain completely unchanged.
Article 368 deals with:
Power and procedure of Parliament to amend the Constitution
It provides the principal constitutional procedure for formal amendments.
However, some constitutional provisions can be changed through procedures outside Article 368.
For UPSC purposes, constitutional changes can broadly be divided into three categories:
Certain provisions can be changed by ordinary parliamentary legislation.
Most constitutional provisions require a special majority of Parliament.
Specified federal provisions require special majority in Parliament and ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures.
Some provisions are amendable by:
Simple majority of Parliament
Such changes are generally not treated as constitutional amendments under Article 368.
Examples include certain provisions concerning:
This provides flexibility.
Most constitutional provisions require:
Majority of the total membership of each House
and:
Two-thirds of members present and voting
Both Houses must independently pass the Bill.
There is no joint sitting for a Constitution Amendment Bill.
Some amendments additionally require ratification by:
At least half of the State Legislatures
This applies to specified provisions affecting the federal structure.
Examples include provisions relating to:
A Constitution Amendment Bill may be introduced in:
Either House of Parliament
It may be introduced by:
No prior recommendation of the President is required for introduction.
The Bill must be passed separately by both Houses with the required majority.
Where necessary, it must then receive State ratification.
Finally:
President → Assent
The President is constitutionally required to give assent once the Bill has been duly passed under Article 368.
There is no provision for a:
Joint sitting
of Parliament to resolve disagreement over a Constitution Amendment Bill.
Therefore:
Lok Sabha
and:
Rajya Sabha
must each independently approve the amendment.
This makes the procedure more rigid than ordinary legislation.
The Constitution must respond to:
Without amendability, constitutional institutions could become disconnected from changing circumstances.
Unlimited amendment power could allow a temporary political majority to:
Therefore:
Amendment power must operate within constitutional limits.
The Basic Structure Doctrine holds that:
Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy or alter its basic structure.
It was established by the Supreme Court in:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The case was decided in:
1973
by a:
13-judge Constitution Bench
It is one of the most significant constitutional decisions in Indian history.
The Court held that Article 368 gives Parliament broad amending power, but that power does not include the authority to destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
The Constitution does not contain a single article listing the basic structure.
The doctrine has been developed through:
Judicial interpretation
The Supreme Court identifies constitutional features that are fundamental to the identity of the Constitution.
The list is:
Not exhaustive
and can evolve through constitutional jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court has recognised various principles as part of the basic structure, including:
Not every element was recognised in the same case.
The Constitution is the supreme law.
Parliament itself derives its authority from the Constitution.
Therefore:
Parliament cannot use constitutional amendment power to abolish constitutional supremacy itself.
Rule of law means that:
Government is subject to law.
No institution has unlimited authority.
An amendment that destroys the rule of law could therefore violate the basic structure.
Judicial review allows courts to examine:
The Court can invalidate an amendment if it violates the basic structure.
Judicial review is therefore an important limitation on constitutional amendability.
The Constitution distributes governmental functions among:
The institutions are not completely isolated, but constitutional checks prevent excessive concentration of power.
Separation of powers is recognised as an element of the basic structure.
India has a federal constitutional structure with a strong Union.
The basic federal framework includes:
Federalism has been recognised as part of the basic structure.
The Constitution does not establish a State religion.
It protects:
Secularism has been recognised by the Supreme Court as part of the basic structure.
Democracy is a fundamental constitutional principle.
It includes:
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to eliminate its democratic character.
India's republican character means:
The head of State is not hereditary.
The President is elected according to the Constitution.
Republicanism has been recognised as part of the basic constitutional structure.
India follows a parliamentary system in which:
The parliamentary system forms part of the constitutional structure protected by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Democracy requires genuine electoral competition.
The Supreme Court recognised:
Free and fair elections
as a basic constitutional principle.
An amendment designed to eliminate meaningful electoral accountability could therefore violate the basic structure.
Individual dignity and liberty are fundamental constitutional values.
They are closely connected with:
The basic structure doctrine protects the constitutional identity built around these values.
Judicial independence ensures that courts can:
Without judicial independence, constitutional supremacy could become ineffective.
Therefore:
Judicial independence → Basic Structure
The power to amend the Constitution itself has limits.
The principle that Parliament possesses:
Limited amending power
has been recognised as part of the basic structure.
This creates a constitutional paradox:
Article 368 gives amendment power
but:
Basic Structure limits that power
The Basic Structure Doctrine protects the:
Identity of the Constitution
An amendment can change constitutional provisions extensively without necessarily violating the doctrine.
The key question is whether the amendment:
Destroys or fundamentally alters the Constitution's basic features.
The doctrine does not make the Constitution completely rigid.
Parliament can still make substantial amendments.
The distinction is:
Amend
vs.
Destroy
Parliament may modify constitutional institutions while preserving their essential character.
In the early years, constitutional amendments concerning:
generated conflicts between:
Parliamentary amendment power
and:
Fundamental Rights
This eventually contributed to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
In:
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court treated a constitutional amendment differently from ordinary "law" for purposes of Article 13.
In:
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
the Supreme Court again upheld Parliament's broad power to amend the Constitution.
However, some judges expressed concerns about the possibility of constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights.
In:
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in the manner then under consideration.
The judgment significantly restricted Parliament's amendment power.
This created a major constitutional conflict between:
Parliament
and:
Supreme Court
Parliament responded to the Golaknath judgment through the:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
It strengthened Parliament's amendment power and expressly affirmed Parliament's power to amend constitutional provisions.
The amendment also made presidential assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill mandatory once duly passed.
The:
Kesavananda Bharati judgment, 1973
created a middle path.
It rejected both extremes:
Parliament has no power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Parliament has unlimited power to amend everything.
Instead:
Parliament has wide amending power
but:
Basic Structure cannot be destroyed.
The:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
attempted to strengthen Parliament's amendment power.
It inserted clauses into Article 368 seeking to prevent constitutional amendments from being challenged in court and declaring that there would be no limitation on Parliament's constituent power.
These provisions were later substantially invalidated by the Supreme Court.
In:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
the Supreme Court struck down important parts of the 42nd Amendment relating to unlimited amendment power.
The Court held that:
Limited amending power
is itself part of the basic structure.
The Court also emphasised harmony between:
Fundamental Rights
and:
Directive Principles
In:
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
the Supreme Court examined constitutional amendments and the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Court distinguished amendments made:
Before 24 April 1973
from those made after the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment for purposes of applying the doctrine to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule.
In:
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
the Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the:
Ninth Schedule
after:
24 April 1973
can be tested against the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Thus, placing a law in the Ninth Schedule does not automatically give it complete immunity from judicial review.
In:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
the Supreme Court examined constitutional changes concerning elections.
The judgment reinforced principles including:
as fundamental constitutional values.
In:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
the Supreme Court strengthened constitutional principles concerning:
The case is important both for Article 356 and for understanding the constitutional structure.
The Ninth Schedule was originally created to protect certain laws from judicial review.
However:
I.R. Coelho
clarified that Ninth Schedule protection is not absolute.
Post-24 April 1973 insertions can be reviewed if they damage the basic structure.
The relationship can be understood as:
Parliament
→ Constitutional amendment
Judiciary
→ Judicial review
Basic Structure Doctrine
→ Constitutional limit on amendment
This creates a system of:
Checks and balances
Parliament remains the primary institution exercising the formal amendment power.
It can:
The Basic Structure Doctrine does not prevent constitutional evolution.
The Supreme Court determines whether a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure.
The judiciary therefore acts as:
Guardian of constitutional supremacy
However, it does not have a complete veto over every constitutional change.
The doctrine applies only when an amendment damages the Constitution's basic structure.
There is no definitive constitutional list of all basic features.
The Supreme Court determines the relevant principles through case law.
Therefore:
Basic Structure = Evolving constitutional doctrine
Not every Fundamental Right is automatically a separate basic feature.
The Court examines the constitutional principle involved and whether its destruction would damage the basic structure.
Thus:
Fundamental Right ≠ Automatically unamendable in every form
but certain constitutional principles connected with rights may form part of the basic structure.
Directive Principles are not simply inferior to Fundamental Rights.
The:
Minerva Mills
judgment emphasised the need for harmony between:
The Constitution seeks to balance:
Individual liberty
with:
Social justice
Where constitutional amendments affect core federal provisions, the Constitution itself requires:
State ratification
The Basic Structure Doctrine provides an additional substantive limitation because:
Federalism
is itself a basic feature.
The amendment process itself is democratic because it requires:
But democracy alone cannot justify destroying constitutional democracy.
Therefore:
Constitutional democracy > temporary majority rule
The doctrine reinforces the idea that:
The Constitution is supreme
rather than:
Parliament is supreme
Parliament exercises power under the Constitution.
Therefore, Parliament cannot legally use constitutional amendment power to abolish the constitutional system itself.
Judicial review is essential to enforcing the doctrine.
Without judicial review, there would be no effective institutional mechanism to determine whether an amendment violates the basic structure.
Thus:
Judicial review
and:
Basic Structure
are closely connected.
The doctrine protects against:
At the same time, it permits necessary constitutional change.
Critics argue that:
Supporters argue that:
The Indian system therefore balances:
Parliamentary amendment power
with:
Judicial constitutional review
and:
Basic Structure limitations
This creates a middle path between:
Rigid constitutionalism
and:
Unlimited parliamentary sovereignty
Constitutional amendment procedure.
1973
→ Basic Structure Doctrine
1967
→ Restricted Parliament's amendment power over Fundamental Rights.
1971
→ Strengthened Parliament's amendment power.
1976
→ Attempted to make amendment power effectively unlimited.
1980
→ Limited amending power is part of Basic Structure.
1981
→ Important Ninth Schedule/Basic Structure ruling.
2007
→ Post-24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule laws can be tested against Basic Structure.
"Article 368 gives Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution."
Incorrect
Basic Structure limits Parliament's power.
"Basic Structure is explicitly listed in the Constitution."
Incorrect
It is a judicial doctrine developed through Supreme Court decisions.
"Kesavananda Bharati prohibited Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights."
Incorrect
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, subject to the Basic Structure limitation.
"Every constitutional amendment requires State ratification."
Incorrect
Only specified federal provisions require ratification by at least half of the States.
"Constitution Amendment Bills can be passed through joint sitting."
Incorrect
There is no joint sitting provision.
"President can veto a duly passed Constitution Amendment Bill."
Incorrect
The President is constitutionally required to give assent.
"Basic Structure means the Constitution cannot be changed."
Incorrect
The Constitution can be extensively amended; its basic structure cannot be destroyed.
"Ninth Schedule laws are completely immune from judicial review."
Incorrect
I.R. Coelho established limits on Ninth Schedule immunity.
"The Basic Structure Doctrine represents a balance between constitutional amendability and constitutional supremacy. Discuss."
Article 368 enables Parliament to amend the Constitution to meet changing circumstances. However, the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati held that the amending power cannot be used to destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
Shankari Prasad
→ Broad amendment power
Sajjan Singh
→ Broad amendment power
Golaknath
→ Restricted amendment of Fundamental Rights
24th Amendment
→ Strengthened Parliament
Kesavananda Bharati
→ Basic Structure
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
→ Democracy/free elections
42nd Amendment
→ Attempted to expand amendment power
Minerva Mills
→ Limited amending power
Waman Rao
→ Ninth Schedule
I.R. Coelho
→ Ninth Schedule subject to Basic Structure review
The Basic Structure Doctrine creates a constitutional middle path. Parliament retains extensive power to adapt the Constitution, but it cannot use that power to destroy the fundamental principles that give the Constitution its identity. This balance protects both constitutional evolution and constitutional continuity.
Article 368
↓
Parliament can amend Constitution
↓
Simple majority / Special majority / State ratification depending on provision
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
↓
Basic Structure Doctrine
↓
Parliament cannot destroy basic structure
Constitutional supremacy
Rule of law
Judicial review
Federalism
Democracy
Republicanism
Secularism
Parliamentary government
Free and fair elections
Separation of powers
Judicial independence
Limited amending power
Golaknath, 1967
↓
24th Amendment, 1971
↓
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
↓
42nd Amendment, 1976
↓
Minerva Mills, 1980
↓
Waman Rao, 1981
↓
I.R. Coelho, 2007
The Indian Constitution is deliberately amendable, but Parliament's amending power is not absolute. Article 368 enables constitutional adaptation, while the Basic Structure Doctrine—developed in Kesavananda Bharati and refined through later judgments—prevents amendments from destroying the Constitution's fundamental identity, preserving the balance between constitutional change and constitutional supremacy.
