97th Amendment Validity: Rajendra N Shah Case

Rajendra Shah case refers to the Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, in which the Court struck down part of the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. The judgment belongs to a short list of instances in which a constitutional amendment, or part of one, has been held invalid by the Supreme Court — alongside rulings such as Minerva Mills and Kihoto Hollohon. It illustrates how the procedural conditions written into Article 368, together with the basic structure doctrine, operate to test the validity of a constitutional amendment.

The Case in Brief

In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021), the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, and held part of it unconstitutional while leaving the remainder standing. The case is recorded among the landmark judgments in which a constitutional amendment has been declared unconstitutional in whole or in part — a list that also includes the invalidation of Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule in Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993) and the striking down of clauses inserted by the 42nd Amendment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

Article 368: How a Constitutional Amendment Is Made

Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal" of any provision, following the procedure the article itself lays down.

Only once these steps are completed does the Constitution "stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill."

The Ratification Proviso: Protecting the Federal Scheme

Not every amendment can be enacted by Parliament acting alone. The proviso to Article 368(2) requires ratification by at least half the State Legislatures, before presidential assent, where an amendment seeks to change:

• the manner of election of the President
• the extent of the executive power of the Union or the States
• the Supreme Court and the High Courts
• the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (the Seventh Schedule lists)
• representation of States in Parliament
• Article 368 itself

This extra safeguard exists because such provisions touch the federal distribution of power, so a special majority in Parliament alone is not treated as sufficient to alter them.

A failure to secure required ratification has previously proved fatal to a provision even after it cleared both Houses by special majority. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court held Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which barred court jurisdiction over disqualification decisions — invalid for want of ratification under the Article 368(2) proviso. The Rajendra N. Shah case belongs to the same family of disputes: whether a constitutional amendment, or a part of it, satisfied the conditions Article 368 lays down before it could take effect.

Basic Structure Doctrine: The Wider Limit on Amending Power

Beyond procedural conditions, Parliament's amending power is also bounded by content. In Golak Nath (1967), the Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to examine the reach of Article 368. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a full bench of thirteen judges held that certain basic features of the Constitution — including its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government — cannot be amended out of existence even by a Bill that otherwise follows every procedural step of Article 368.

This doctrine was tested again after Parliament, through the 42nd Amendment (1976), inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368 declaring that there was no limitation on its constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in any court. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down these clauses, holding that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, and that Parliament cannot use Article 368 to convert that limited power into an unlimited one or to exclude judicial review.

Amendments (or Parts) Held Unconstitutional

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 368 procedure: ordinary majority vs special majority vs special majority with State ratification
• Categories of amendment requiring State ratification under the Article 368(2) proviso
• Landmark cases on amendment validity: Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, Kihoto Hollohon, Rajendra N. Shah
• No provision exists for a joint sitting of Parliament on a Constitution Amendment Bill

Mains

• Discuss the significance of the ratification requirement in Article 368(2) as a safeguard for India's federal structure. (GS2)
• "The basic structure doctrine constrains Parliament's constituent power without appearing anywhere in the constitutional text." Examine with reference to landmark cases. (GS2)
• Analyse how courts have used procedural and substantive review together to test the validity of constitutional amendments. (GS2)

FAQ

Q1. What is the Rajendra Shah case about? It is the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, in which part of the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 was declared unconstitutional.

Q2. Which article governs the amendment procedure examined in such cases? Article 368, which lays down how a Constitution Amendment Bill is introduced, passed by special majority, and — where required — ratified by the States before presidential assent.

Q3. When is ratification by State Legislatures required for a constitutional amendment? Under the proviso to Article 368(2), ratification by not less than half the States is required where an amendment touches matters such as the distribution of legislative powers, representation of States in Parliament, the Supreme Court and High Courts, or Article 368 itself.

Q4. How is the Rajendra N. Shah case similar to Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu? Both belong to the small set of cases in which the Supreme Court has held a constitutional amendment, or part of one, unconstitutional — by testing whether the procedure and limits set by Article 368 were properly followed.

Q5. What is the basic structure doctrine, and how does it relate to Article 368? It is the principle, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), that Parliament's power under Article 368 cannot be used to alter or destroy the basic features of the Constitution, even through a Bill that otherwise satisfies every procedural requirement.

Quick Revision

• Rajendra N. Shah case (2021): part of the 97th Amendment Act, 2011 held unconstitutional
• Article 368: special majority in each House; no joint sitting; presidential assent mandatory
• Ratification by half the States needed for amendments touching federal provisions (Article 368(2) proviso)
• Kihoto Hollohon (1993): Tenth Schedule Paragraph 7 invalid for want of ratification
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): basic structure doctrine — Parliament cannot amend basic features
• Minerva Mills (1980): struck down the unlimited amending power inserted by the 42nd Amendment

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 368 — https://legislative.gov.in
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Others, A.I.R. 1993 SC 412 — Supreme Court of India
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Supreme Court of India
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — Supreme Court of India
• Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) — Supreme Court of India

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.