Article 368 provides the constitutional framework for:
Amendment of the Constitution
It gives Parliament the power and procedure to amend the Constitution.
However, Parliament's amending power is:
Wide but Not Unlimited
The limitation is provided by the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
The Supreme Court established this doctrine in:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
Article 368 → Power + Procedure to Amend
Basic Structure → Substantive Limitation
Parliament → Can Amend
Parliament → Cannot Destroy Basic Structure
Article 368 is contained in:
Part XX
of the Constitution.
Part XX deals with:
Amendment of the Constitution
Article 368 establishes the procedure through which Parliament can amend constitutional provisions.
Part XX → Amendment of Constitution
Article 368 → Constitutional Amendment
Article 368 gives Parliament the power to:
Add + Vary + Repeal
provisions of the Constitution.
This power is exercised according to the constitutional amendment procedure.
Article 368 does not give Parliament:
Unlimited Power
A Constitutional Amendment Bill is different from an ordinary Bill.
Generally deals with:
Ordinary Legislation
Deals with:
Constitutional Provisions
and follows the procedure prescribed by:
Article 368
Ordinary Law → Ordinary Legislative Procedure
Constitutional Amendment → Article 368 Procedure
A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced only in:
Parliament
It can be introduced in:
It cannot be introduced in:
State Legislature
Yes.
A Constitutional Amendment Bill does not require:
Prior Recommendation of the President
for introduction.
President's prior recommendation is necessary for every Constitutional Amendment Bill.
False.
A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced by:
A Minister
or:
A Private Member
Therefore, it is not necessary that every Constitutional Amendment Bill must be introduced by a Minister.
Constitutional Amendment Bill → Government Member or Private Member
Most Constitutional Amendment Bills require a:
Special Majority
in each House of Parliament.
The required majority is:
Majority of the Total Membership of the House
AND
Two-thirds of Members Present and Voting
Special Majority = Majority of Total Membership + 2/3 Present and Voting
Both Houses must separately pass the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
Therefore:
Lok Sabha → Separate Approval
Rajya Sabha → Separate Approval
There is:
No Joint Sitting
for Constitutional Amendment Bills.
Article 108 provides for joint sitting in certain legislative situations.
However, the joint sitting procedure does not apply to:
Constitutional Amendment Bills
Therefore, if one House rejects the Bill:
The Bill Cannot Be Passed Through Joint Sitting
Constitutional Amendment → No Joint Sitting
State Legislatures do not initiate Constitutional Amendment Bills.
However, they participate in the amendment process when the amendment affects specified:
Federal Provisions
In such cases, ratification is required from:
At Least Half of the State Legislatures
The Constitution can be amended through three broad methods.
Simple Majority
Certain provisions can be changed by a simple majority of Parliament.
These are generally outside Article 368's formal amendment procedure.
Special Majority
Most constitutional provisions require:
Majority of Total Membership + 2/3 Present and Voting
Special Majority + State Ratification
Certain federal provisions additionally require:
Ratification by at least half of State Legislatures
Some constitutional changes are made through:
Simple Majority
and are not treated as amendments under Article 368.
Examples include certain changes relating to:
Articles 2, 3 and 169 → Simple Majority
Most formal constitutional amendments follow:
Article 368
and require:
Special Majority
This includes many provisions relating to:
Certain amendments affecting the federal structure require:
Special Majority of Parliament
plus:
Ratification by at least half of State Legislatures
This protects the federal character of the Constitution.
The Constitution requires:
At Least Half of the States
It does not require:
Two-thirds of States
and does not require:
All States
Two-thirds of States must ratify a federal amendment.
False.
After a Constitutional Amendment Bill is duly passed according to Article 368, it is presented to the:
President
The President:
Shall Give Assent
The President does not have the same discretion to:
Withhold Assent
as may exist with certain ordinary legislative situations.
A Constitutional Amendment Bill cannot be returned by the President for reconsideration in the manner available for an ordinary Bill.
Once constitutionally passed:
President Shall Give Assent
Constitutional Amendment → Mandatory Presidential Assent
Yes.
State ratification is required only where the amendment concerns specified federal provisions.
If fewer than:
Half of the States
ratify the amendment:
The Amendment Cannot Complete the Required Procedure
There is no provision for:
Parliament Overriding State Ratification
The Constitution does not prescribe a specific time limit within Article 368 for State Legislatures to ratify a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
Article 368 → No Express Time Limit for State Ratification
Article 368 gives Parliament a constitutional amending power.
However, the Supreme Court has held that this power cannot be used to:
Destroy the Basic Structure
The doctrine was established in:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Amend → Yes
Destroy Basic Structure → No
In:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is:
Not Unlimited
Parliament can amend almost every part of the Constitution.
But it cannot:
Alter the Basic Structure
Kesavananda → Article 368 Limited by Basic Structure
Without a substantive limitation, Parliament could theoretically use Article 368 to:
The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents:
Constitutional Self-Destruction
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
not:
Absolute Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliament derives its constitutional authority from:
The Constitution
Therefore Parliament cannot use Article 368 to place itself:
Above the Constitution
Constitution → Creates Amendment Power
Amendment Power → Cannot Destroy Constitution
Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament possesses ultimate law-making authority.
India does not follow this doctrine in an absolute form.
Parliament is subject to:
Parliamentary Power → Constitutionally Limited
Constitutional amendments can be subjected to:
Judicial Review
to determine whether they violate the:
Basic Structure
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments is itself part of the:
Basic Structure
Yes.
The Supreme Court can examine whether an amendment:
Damages or Destroys the Basic Structure
The Court does not ordinarily review an amendment merely because it disagrees with its:
Policy Wisdom
Basic Structure Review → Constitutional Review, Not Policy Review
Judicial Review of amendments requires:
Independent Judiciary
Therefore:
Judicial Independence
supports:
Basic Structure Review
and:
Article 368 Limitations
Article 368 gives Parliament constitutional amendment power.
However, the Judiciary retains the authority to determine whether that power has crossed the:
Basic Structure Boundary
This creates:
Constitutional Checks and Balances
Parliament → Amend
Judiciary → Review
Basic Structure → Limit
Rule of Law requires:
Government Under Law
Article 368 itself is subject to:
Constitutional Limits
Therefore:
Even Constitutional Power Must Be Constitutionally Limited
The Supreme Court's position regarding amendment of Fundamental Rights evolved over time.
Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights was upheld.
The broad amendment power was reaffirmed.
The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court adopted the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Fundamental Rights can be amended, but an amendment cannot:
Destroy the Basic Structure
Directive Principles can be amended.
However, Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy the constitutional balance between:
Fundamental Rights + Directive Principles
The Supreme Court emphasised this balance in:
Minerva Mills, 1980
The Preamble can be amended.
It was amended by:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
The amendment added:
and changed:
Unity of the Nation
to:
Unity and Integrity of the Nation
The Preamble can be amended, but its:
Basic Constitutional Identity
cannot be destroyed.
Federalism is part of the:
Basic Structure
Certain federal provisions require:
State Ratification
This demonstrates that Article 368 itself recognises:
Federal Participation
in specified amendments.
Federal Amendments → Parliament + States
Democracy is part of the:
Basic Structure
Therefore Parliament cannot use Article 368 to:
Abolish Genuine Democratic Government
or fundamentally destroy:
Free and Fair Elections
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
The republican character of India is connected with:
Democracy + Popular Sovereignty + Political Equality
An amendment fundamentally replacing India with:
Hereditary Political Rule
could raise a Basic Structure challenge.
Republican Character → Constitutional Identity
Secularism has been recognised as a:
Basic Structure Feature
An amendment that fundamentally transforms India into a:
Theocratic State
could therefore violate the Basic Structure.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994
In:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994
the Supreme Court recognised:
Federalism
as an important constitutional feature.
Therefore Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy the federal character of the Constitution.
In:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980
the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that attempted to make Parliament's amending power effectively:
Unlimited
The Court reaffirmed:
Limited Amending Power
and:
Judicial Review
Minerva Mills → Article 368 Is Not Unlimited
The Ninth Schedule was created to provide protection to certain laws.
However, constitutional amendments placing laws in the Ninth Schedule are not automatically immune from:
Basic Structure Review
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 examined to determine whether they damage:
Basic Structure
Parliament cannot use constitutional amendment to create a:
Permanent Judicial Review-Free Zone
The power under Article 368 is known as:
Amending Power
not:
Constituent Power
in the sense of creating an entirely new constitutional order.
Constituent Power → Creates Constitution
Amending Power → Changes Existing Constitution
An amendment changes the Constitution while preserving its:
Basic Identity
Replacement would fundamentally transform the constitutional order.
Amendment → Change
Replacement → Constitutional Transformation
The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents amendment power from becoming:
Constitution-Making Power
Yes.
Article 368 can itself be amended.
However, Parliament cannot amend Article 368 to:
Completely Remove the Basic Structure Limitation
This was central to:
Minerva Mills
Article 368 → Amendable
Unlimited Article 368 Power → Not Permitted
The:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
attempted to strengthen Parliament's amending power.
It inserted provisions intended to:
The Supreme Court later invalidated important aspects of these changes.
In:
Minerva Mills, 1980
the Supreme Court held that:
Limited Amending Power
is itself part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore Parliament cannot use Article 368 to:
Expand Article 368 Into Unlimited Power
Amending Power → Cannot Make Itself Unlimited
Article 368 permits:
Constitutional Evolution
The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures:
Constitutional Continuity
Together they create a balance between:
Change + Stability
Article 368 → Adaptation
Basic Structure → Identity
Constitutional morality requires institutions to respect:
The use of Article 368 should therefore remain consistent with:
Constitutionalism
Parliament cannot use its amendment power to completely eliminate:
Judicial Review
or:
Judicial Independence
because these principles support:
Separation of Powers
and:
Constitutional Balance
If Parliament could remove judicial independence through an amendment, constitutional review would become:
Politically Dependent
Therefore:
Judicial Independence
is an essential safeguard against abuse of:
Article 368
In:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
the Supreme Court held that free and fair elections form part of the constitutional structure.
Parliament cannot use Article 368 to create:
Permanent Electoral Immunity
for particular individuals or offices.
Article 368 → Cannot Destroy Electoral Democracy
The Court generally asks:
Does the amendment damage or destroy the Basic Structure?
Relevant considerations may include:
Substantive Constitutional Review
There is no complete constitutional list of:
Basic Structure Features
The Supreme Court has recognised various features over time.
Examples include:
The list is:
Not Exhaustive
The Indian Constitution is neither:
Completely Rigid
nor:
Completely Flexible
Article 368 provides a structured method for constitutional change.
Different provisions require:
Flexible + Rigid → Balanced Constitution
State ratification for specified amendments ensures that:
Federal Interests
cannot be completely ignored.
This is particularly important where amendments affect:
Article 368 enables democratic constitutional adaptation.
The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that:
Temporary Political Majorities
cannot permanently destroy:
Constitutional Democracy
The doctrine balances:
Majority Rule + Constitutional Continuity
The Constitution begins with:
We, the People of India
The amendment process allows elected representatives to adapt the Constitution.
However, the amendment power remains within the constitutional framework created by:
The People
Popular Sovereignty → Exercised Through Constitutional Institutions
Judicial Review does not mean courts can reject amendments because they are:
Politically Unpopular
The test is whether they violate:
Constitutional Limitations
especially:
Basic Structure
Policy Disagreement ≠ Basic Structure Violation
Courts interpret:
The Judiciary therefore plays an important role in determining the:
Substantive Boundary
of Parliament's amending power.
The Supreme Court has distinguished between:
Procedural Requirements
and:
Substantive Basic Structure Review
A constitutional amendment must satisfy the prescribed constitutional procedure.
It may also be invalid if it:
Damages the Basic Structure
Where State ratification is required:
Step 1 → Parliament Passes Bill by Special Majority
Step 2 → At Least Half of State Legislatures Ratify
Step 3 → Bill Presented to President
Step 4 → President Gives Assent
Step 5 → Constitution Stands Amended
Parliament → States → President
No.
The Constitutional Amendment Bill is first passed by:
Parliament
through the required special majority.
Where necessary, it is then sent to:
State Legislatures
for ratification.
States ratify before Parliament passes the Bill.
False.
Yes.
State Legislatures ratify by:
Simple Majority
unless the Constitution provides otherwise.
The special majority requirement applies to:
Parliament
for the amendment bill.
Do not confuse:
Parliamentary Special Majority
with:
State Ratification
When a State Legislature ratifies a Constitutional Amendment Bill, the constitutional process does not require the:
Governor's Assent
as part of the State ratification step.
The ratification is an act of the:
State Legislature
State Ratification → State Legislature
Broadly, Parliament has power to amend:
Constitutional Provisions
subject to:
Basic Structure
Some provisions are changed by:
Simple Majority
and are not treated as amendments under Article 368.
The Constitution does not contain a broad category of provisions declared absolutely:
Unamendable
Instead, the substantive limitation comes from:
Basic Structure
Suppose Parliament passes an amendment declaring:
"All future constitutional amendments made by Parliament shall be beyond judicial review."
Such a provision could be invalid because it attempts to eliminate:
Basic Structure Review
Parliament Cannot Remove the Constitutional Limit on Its Own Power
Suppose an amendment attempts to:
Abolish elections permanently
This would fundamentally destroy:
Democracy + Representative Government
and could therefore violate:
Basic Structure
Suppose an amendment attempts to:
Abolish the constitutional existence of States
and completely eliminate federal distribution of power.
Such an amendment could raise a:
Basic Structure Challenge
because:
Federalism
is a protected constitutional feature.
Suppose an amendment provides:
"No law or constitutional amendment can ever be examined by any court."
This could be challenged because it may destroy:
Judicial Review
and:
Rule of Law
Suppose an amendment attempts to:
Eliminate the entire constitutional protection of individual liberty
Such an amendment could be examined under the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
The question is not simply:
"Was a Fundamental Right changed?"
The question is:
"Does the change damage the Basic Structure?"
The Preamble can be amended.
However, Parliament cannot amend it in a manner that destroys its:
Essential Constitutional Values
such as:
where such destruction damages the Basic Structure.
The amendment process must preserve:
Constitutional Identity
while allowing:
Constitutional Evolution
Article 368 → Change
Basic Structure → Identity
Judicial Review → Enforcement
Parliamentary Amendment Power Upheld
Amending Power Reaffirmed
Parliament Could Not Amend Fundamental Rights — Position Later Changed
Basic Structure Doctrine
Free and Fair Elections + Basic Structure
Limited Amending Power + Judicial Review
24 April 1973 Cut-Off for Ninth Schedule Review
Ninth Schedule Laws Subject to Basic Structure Review
Part XX → Amendment of Constitution
Article 368 → Constitutional Amendment
Article 368 Bill → Can Be Introduced in Either House
State Legislature → Cannot Introduce Constitutional Amendment Bill
Private Member → Can Introduce Constitutional Amendment Bill
Special Majority → Majority of Total Membership + 2/3 Present and Voting
Both Houses → Must Separately Pass
Joint Sitting → Not Available
President → Shall Give Assent
State Ratification → At Least Half of States
State Ratification → Required Only for Specified Federal Provisions
Basic Structure → Limitation on Article 368
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure
Minerva Mills → Limited Amending Power
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule Review
Article 368 gives Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
False
The power is limited by:
Basic Structure
A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced only in Lok Sabha.
False
It can be introduced in:
Either House
State Legislatures can introduce Constitutional Amendment Bills.
False
Only:
Parliament
can introduce them.
A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be passed through joint sitting.
False
There is:
No Joint Sitting
The President can reject a duly passed Constitutional Amendment Bill.
False
The President:
Shall Give Assent
Every Constitutional Amendment requires State ratification.
False
Only specified federal amendments require ratification.
Two-thirds of State Legislatures must ratify.
False
The requirement is:
At Least Half
State ratification is required before Parliament passes the Bill.
False
Parliament first passes the Bill, where required, followed by State ratification.
Article 368 itself cannot be amended.
False
It can be amended, subject to:
Basic Structure
Parliament can amend Article 368 to make its amending power unlimited.
False
Limited Amending Power is itself part of the Basic Structure.
All Fundamental Rights are completely beyond amendment.
False
The current position is that amendments are permissible subject to:
Basic Structure
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments is unconstitutional.
False
Judicial Review of amendments for Basic Structure violation is constitutionally recognised.
The Basic Structure Doctrine was established by Golaknath.
False
It was established in:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Article 368 makes Parliament equivalent to the Constituent Assembly.
False
Parliament exercises:
Amending Power
not unlimited:
Constituent Power
For:
"Article 368 provides Parliament with the power to amend the Constitution, but this power is not unlimited. Discuss in the light of the Basic Structure Doctrine."
Use:
Define Article 368 as the:
Constitutional Source of Amendment Power and Procedure
Article 368 ensures constitutional adaptability, while the Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that adaptability does not become constitutional self-destruction.
"Article 368 embodies the Indian Constitution's mechanism for constitutional change by conferring amending power on Parliament and prescribing different procedural requirements. However, following Kesavananda Bharati, this power is subject to a substantive limitation: Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that damages or destroys its Basic Structure."
"The relationship between Article 368 and the Basic Structure Doctrine represents the Indian Constitution's balance between flexibility and permanence. Parliament remains empowered to adapt the constitutional framework to changing circumstances, but the judiciary ensures that such adaptation does not destroy the foundational principles that constitute India's constitutional identity."
Amendment of Constitution
Power + Procedure
Only Institution That Introduces Amendment Bills
Can Introduce Bill
Majority of Total Membership + 2/3 Present and Voting
Not Available
At Least Half
Shall Give Assent
Basic Structure
Limited Amending Power
Free and Fair Elections
Ninth Schedule Review
Article 368 → Amend
Basic Structure → Limit
Article 368
→ Constitutional Amendment Power
→ Parliament
→ Special Majority
→ State Ratification Where Required
→ Presidential Assent
↓
Basic Structure Doctrine
→ Judicial Review
→ Limited Amending Power
↓
Protected Features
→ Democracy
→ Republicanism
→ Federalism
→ Secularism
→ Rule of Law
→ Judicial Review
→ Judicial Independence
→ Separation of Powers
→ Free and Fair Elections
↓
Constitutional Identity Protected
Article 368 provides Parliament with the power and procedure to amend the Constitution.
The power is broad, but it is not unlimited.
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati, prevents Parliament from using Article 368 to destroy the Constitution's essential features.
The Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments for Basic Structure violations.
Thus, Article 368 provides constitutional adaptability, while the Basic Structure Doctrine ensures constitutional continuity.
The Indian model therefore balances:
Amendment + Stability
Democratic Change + Constitutional Limits
Parliamentary Power + Judicial Review
Constitutional Evolution + Constitutional Identity
