Constitutional Amendment Procedure

The Constitution of India can be changed, but not as easily as an ordinary law. Article 368, in Part XX of the Constitution, gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution and lays down the procedure. Some changes need only a simple majority, many need a "special majority" in both Houses, and some also need the approval of at least half of the states. This mix makes the Indian Constitution partly rigid and partly flexible.

Why does it exist?

A constitution has to last for a long time, but society keeps changing. If changing it were too easy, the ruling side of the day could rewrite the basic rules for its own benefit. If it were impossible to change, the country would be stuck with old rules. Think of it like the rules of a housing society: everyday matters are decided by a simple vote, but changing the society's founding rules needs a much bigger agreement. Article 368 sets this "bigger agreement" for the Constitution.

Where did it come from?

The framers studied other constitutions. The idea of amending through the legislature with a special majority is broadly linked to the South African model, while the US Constitution is much harder to change and the British Parliament can change anything by a simple majority. India chose a middle path.

The three ways to amend

UPSC loves this classification:

1. By a simple majority of Parliament (outside Article 368): Some provisions can be changed like an ordinary law, and the Constitution itself says such laws are not "amendments" under Article 368. Examples: admitting or creating new states (Articles 2 and 3, see Article 4), creating or abolishing a state's Legislative Council (Article 169), creating legislatures for some Union Territories (Article 239A), and changes to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules.
2. By a special majority of Parliament (Article 368(2)): Most provisions, including Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, are amended this way.
3. By a special majority plus ratification by half the states (proviso to Article 368(2)): Provisions that affect the federal structure need, in addition, approval by the legislatures of at least one-half of the states, by a simple majority resolution.

What is a special majority?

In each House, the bill must get:

• a majority of the total membership of the House (more than half of all seats, whether filled or empty, present or absent), and
• two-thirds of the members present and voting.

A simple example: the Lok Sabha has 543 seats. Suppose 528 members are present and vote. The bill needs at least 272 "yes" votes (more than half of 543) and at least 352 "yes" votes (two-thirds of 528). In practice, the second test (352) is the harder one here. This is exactly why the 131st Amendment Bill failed in April 2026: it got 298 "yes" votes, which crossed 272 but not 352.

How does the procedure work, step by step?

1. An amendment bill can be introduced only in Parliament, in either House. It cannot start in a state legislature.
2. It can be introduced by a minister or a private member. The President's prior permission is not needed.
3. Each House must pass it separately by a special majority.
4. There is no joint sitting if the two Houses disagree. (A joint sitting under Article 108 is only for ordinary bills.) So if one House rejects it, the bill fails.
5. If it touches a federal provision, at least half of the state legislatures must approve it. There is no time limit for them to do so.
6. The bill then goes to the President, who must give assent. He or she can neither withhold assent nor send it back for reconsideration. This was made compulsory by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971.

Which provisions need state approval?

The proviso to Article 368(2) lists:

• Election of the President (Articles 54 and 55)
• Extent of executive power of the Union and the states (Articles 73 and 162)
• Article 241 (High Courts for Union Territories) and Article 279A (the GST Council, added by the 101st Amendment, 2016)
• The Supreme Court and High Courts (Chapter IV of Part V and Chapter V of Part VI)
• Distribution of legislative powers between Union and states (Chapter I of Part XI) and any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule
• The representation of states in Parliament
• Article 368 itself

Examples: the GST amendment (101st, 2016) and the NJAC amendment (99th, 2014) were ratified by the states before assent.

The limits: the basic structure doctrine

Can Parliament change anything through Article 368? The Supreme Court's answer changed over time:

• Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965): Parliament can amend any part, including Fundamental Rights.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): an 11-judge bench said Parliament cannot take away Fundamental Rights by amendment, because an amendment is "law" under Article 13.
• 24th Amendment (1971): Parliament responded by saying amendments are not "law" under Article 13, and that the President must give assent.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973): a 13-judge bench, by 7 to 6, held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but cannot destroy its "basic structure".
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills (1980): the court used the doctrine to strike down parts of amendments. Minerva Mills said limited amending power is itself a basic feature.
• NJAC case (2015): the court struck down the 99th Amendment (National Judicial Appointments Commission) because it harmed judicial independence, a basic feature.

The court has listed many basic features over time, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review and free and fair elections.

India's experience

India has made over a hundred amendments since 1950. Some are landmark changes: the 42nd (1976) made sweeping changes during the Emergency; the 44th (1978) undid many of them; the 73rd and 74th (1992) created panchayats and municipalities; the 101st (2016) brought GST; the 106th (2023) reserved one-third of seats for women. But amendments can also fail: the 131st Amendment Bill in April 2026 did not get the required two-thirds in the Lok Sabha.

Commonly confused concepts

• Special majority under Article 368 vs special majority under Article 249: Article 368 needs a majority of total membership plus two-thirds present and voting in each House. Article 249 (Rajya Sabha allowing Parliament to make laws on a State List subject) needs only two-thirds of members present and voting in the Rajya Sabha.
• Simple, absolute, effective and special majority: A simple majority is more than half of those present and voting. An absolute majority is more than half of the total membership. An effective majority is more than half of the House's effective strength (total minus vacancies), used to remove the Vice-President or the Speaker. A special majority is the combination required by Article 368.
• Amendment vs ordinary law: An ordinary bill can go to a joint sitting and the President can return it once; neither is possible for an amendment bill.
• Article 3 laws vs Article 368 amendments: Creating a new state changes the First and Fourth Schedules, but it is done by an ordinary law under Articles 3 and 4, not under Article 368.
• Ceding territory: In In re Berubari Union (1960), the Supreme Court said that giving away Indian territory to another country needs a constitutional amendment under Article 368; an Article 3 law is not enough. This is why the 9th Amendment (1960) and the 100th Amendment (2015, Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh) were passed.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• Too easy or too hard? Critics say India has amended its Constitution very often, sometimes to overturn court rulings. Others say frequent amendment shows a living document that adapts.
• Limited role of states: States cannot start an amendment, and most amendments need no state approval. Some argue this weakens federalism, especially on issues like seat allocation that affect states differently.
• No time limit for ratification can leave amendments pending for long.
• The basic structure doctrine is praised for protecting core values, but criticised as judge-made and uncertain, since no full list of basic features exists.
• Way forward: Experts suggest wider consultation with states and the public on major amendments, and building cross-party agreement before bills come to vote, as Parliament did for GST through the GST Council model.

Concepts to Know

• Ratification: Formal approval. Here, it means state legislatures passing a resolution agreeing with an amendment bill.
• Proviso: A part of a legal provision that adds an exception or extra condition. It usually begins with "Provided that".
• Federal structure: The system in which power is shared between the Union government and state governments.
• Basic structure: The core features of the Constitution that, according to the Supreme Court, Parliament cannot destroy even by amendment.
• Joint sitting: A combined meeting of both Houses of Parliament, called by the President under Article 108 to settle a deadlock on an ordinary bill.
• Private member: An MP who is not a minister.