Case for Comprehensive Revision vs Piecemeal Amendment (Sarkaria Commission)

Comprehensive revision of the Constitution means reconsidering its provisions together as a connected whole, as opposed to piecemeal amendment, where Parliament changes one article or schedule at a time under Article 368 while the rest of the document stays untouched. India has, in practice, followed the piecemeal route since 1950, and the question of whether the country instead needs a wholesale constitutional revision has recurred in debates on the working of India's federal and constitutional arrangements, including reviews of Centre-State relations such as the Sarkaria Commission's. Understanding this debate starts with how Article 368 structures amendment, and why courts have placed a ceiling on how far even a "comprehensive" amendment can go.

How Article 368 Structures Amendment

Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal" of any provision, but only through the procedure it lays down. An amendment can be initiated only by a Bill introduced in either House of Parliament — never in a state legislature — moved by a minister or a private member, without needing the President's prior permission. Once passed by each House separately, by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, the Bill goes to the President, who is obliged to give assent. There is no joint-sitting provision if the two Houses disagree, unlike ordinary legislation.

For provisions touching the federal structure — the President's election, Union-state executive and legislative powers, the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Seventh Schedule lists, and Article 368 itself — an extra safeguard applies: the amendment must also be ratified by not less than half the state legislatures, by simple majority, before Presidential assent. No time limit is fixed for this ratification.

A separate category of provisions — formation of new states, state boundaries, Parliament's quorum and rules of procedure, salaries of MPs, and the number of Supreme Court puisne judges, among others — can be changed by an ordinary law passed by simple majority, entirely outside Article 368.

Piecemeal Amendment as the Constitution's Actual Pattern

This layered design, with varying stringency depending on which provision is touched, has structurally favoured piecemeal change. Since most provisions need only a special majority in Parliament, without state ratification or any constituent body, individual articles are routinely revised in isolation as specific problems arise. Structural features reinforce this pattern: there is no special constitution-making body, such as a constitutional convention, that revisits the document as a whole; the power to initiate any amendment rests with Parliament, and state legislatures cannot originate amendment bills except through a resolution on creating or abolishing a legislative council, which Parliament may simply ignore; and because most provisions can be altered by Parliament alone, narrowly targeted amendments are structurally easier than any single comprehensive exercise.

The Case for Comprehensive Revision

The argument for comprehensive revision rests on the concern that isolated changes to individual articles can accumulate inconsistencies across the document over time, and that a federal and rights framework benefits from being reconsidered together rather than provision by provision. This is the kind of question bodies reviewing India's constitutional and Centre-State framework, such as the Sarkaria Commission, have had to weigh — whether recurring federal frictions are better addressed through a holistic look at the relevant provisions, or through targeted amendments to the specific articles causing difficulty. In practice, the piecemeal approach has prevailed, since Article 368 provides no mechanism for a comprehensive review process comparable to a constituent assembly.

The Basic Structure Doctrine as an Outer Limit

Whichever route is chosen, the Supreme Court has fixed a boundary on Parliament's amending power that constrains even a comprehensive exercise. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), a 13-judge bench held that certain basic features — sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government — cannot be amended away under Article 368, since doing so would exceed the constituent power itself.

Parliament responded through the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), adding clauses (4)-(5) to Article 368 to declare there was no limitation on its constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in court on any ground, including violation of Fundamental Rights. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down these clauses, holding that judicial review is itself a basic feature that cannot be excluded even by amendment. A limited amending power, the Court reasoned, is itself part of the basic structure, so Parliament cannot use that limited power to convert itself into an unlimited one; it also held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a basic-structure element, so giving Directive Principles blanket precedence over Articles 14, 19 and 31 could not stand. Waman Rao (1980) clarified that the doctrine applies to amendments enacted on or after 24 April 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda judgment — including Ninth Schedule insertions, which lose blanket protection from judicial scrutiny after that date.

The doctrine also polices procedural shortcuts within amendments. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court declared Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which barred court jurisdiction over anti-defection disqualification — invalid, since it altered the courts' jurisdiction under Article 368(2) without the state ratification the proviso requires for such a change.

Three Ways the Constitution Can Be Amended

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 368 lays down the amendment procedure; some provisions change by simple majority outside Article 368.
• The basic structure doctrine originated in Kesavananda Bharati (1973); applied in Minerva Mills (1980).
• The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) tried to remove limits on Parliament's amending power; partly reversed by the Court.

Mains

• Evaluate whether India's piecemeal amendment practice, versus a comprehensive revision process, has strengthened or weakened constitutional stability.
• Discuss the basic structure doctrine as a check on Parliament's constituent power, citing Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills.
• Examine why state ratification is required for amendments touching federal provisions under Article 368.

FAQ

Q1. What distinguishes comprehensive revision from piecemeal amendment? Piecemeal amendment changes one provision, or a related set, at a time under Article 368 — how India's Constitution has actually evolved. Comprehensive revision would mean reconsidering the document as an integrated whole, a process Article 368 does not itself provide for.

Q2. Can Parliament use Article 368 to alter the Constitution's basic structure? No. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that basic features such as judicial review, the federal system, and parliamentary government lie beyond the amending power under Article 368.

Q3. Which amendments need state legislature ratification? Amendments affecting the President's election, Union-state executive and legislative powers, the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Seventh Schedule lists, and Article 368 itself require ratification by at least half the states, in addition to Parliament's special majority.

Q4. What did Minerva Mills decide? It struck down clauses (4)-(5) inserted into Article 368 by the 42nd Amendment, which sought to remove all limits on Parliament's amending power and exclude judicial review, holding both to be basic features.

Q5. Why has India followed piecemeal amendment rather than periodic comprehensive revision? Article 368 provides no constitutional-convention-like body for comprehensive review, most provisions can be altered by Parliament alone through special majority, and amendment initiation is confined largely to Parliament — all of which make narrow, targeted change structurally easier than wholesale revision.

Quick Revision

• Article 368: power to amend by addition, variation, or repeal, via a Bill in either House.
• Three amendment routes: simple majority, special majority, special majority plus state ratification.
• State ratification (half the states) needed for amendments to the Article 368 proviso list.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): basic structure doctrine; certain features unamendable.
• Minerva Mills (1980): struck down Article 368(4)-(5); judicial review is a basic feature.
• Waman Rao (1980): doctrine applies from 24 April 1973 onward.
• Kihoto Hollohon (1993): Tenth Schedule Paragraph 7 invalid for want of state ratification.
• No constituent-assembly-like body exists for comprehensive revision; amendment has proceeded piecemeal.

Sources

• The Constitution of India, Article 368 — https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 — Supreme Court of India
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 — Supreme Court of India
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Others, AIR 1993 SC 412 — Supreme Court of India
• Waman Rao v. Union of India, 1981 — 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.