Frequency of Constitutional Amendments

Amendment frequency in the Indian context is less about a fixed count of changes and more about how easily the Constitution can be altered — a pattern that flows directly from the layered procedure Article 368 sets out. India's Constitution deliberately mixes flexibility for routine matters with rigidity for its core structure, and this design explains both why amendments happen relatively often and why the most fundamental provisions almost never change.

Three Routes to Amendment

Not every textual change to the Constitution goes through Article 368. Provisions can be altered in three distinct ways, each demanding a different level of parliamentary and state consent.

Changes made through the first route are not even treated as "amendments" for the purposes of Article 368, which is one reason the Constitution has been altered so often without its core architecture shifting: a large share of adjustments never touch the formal amending clause at all.

The Article 368 Procedure

When Article 368 is invoked, the process follows a fixed sequence. An amendment bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament — never in a state legislature — by a minister or a private member, and it does not need the President's prior permission. Each House must pass it separately by the prescribed special majority; there is no provision for a joint sitting if the two Houses disagree, unlike the procedure for ordinary bills. Where the bill touches a federal provision listed in the proviso, it additionally needs ratification by resolutions of not less than half the State Legislatures, with no time limit fixed for states to act.

Once passed — and ratified where required — the bill goes to the President. A 1971 amendment made presidential assent to a constitutional amendment bill obligatory, removing any discretion to withhold or indefinitely delay it. On assent, the Constitution stands amended exactly as the bill provides; Article 368(2) is explicit that no authority outside this procedure can amend the Constitution.

This three-tier design is comparatively easier to trigger than rigid federal constitutions that demand super-majority ratification by a much larger share of constituent units, which is part of why the Indian Constitution has accumulated a substantial number of amendments since 1950 even as its foundational features have stayed intact.

Basic Structure Doctrine: The Check on Frequency of Change to the Core

The ease of amending routine provisions is balanced by a judicially evolved limit on how far Parliament can go when altering the Constitution's essential character.

In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), a 13-judge bench held that certain basic features — including sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government — lie beyond the reach of the amending power under Article 368, even though the article itself places no explicit limit on what can be amended.

Parliament initially resisted this limit. The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368, declaring that there was no limitation on Parliament's 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: a body granted a limited power to amend cannot use that same power to convert itself into an unlimited one. The judgment identified judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, as further basic features that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy.

The doctrine also polices the ratification requirement itself. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1993), the Supreme Court invalidated Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which had barred courts from reviewing anti-defection decisions — because it changed the jurisdiction of courts under Article 368(2) without the state ratification that provision requires.

Why the Pattern Holds

Taken together, these threads explain the observed pattern of amendment activity: routine and administrative provisions change through ordinary legislative majorities without invoking Article 368 at all; most other provisions require a special majority that is harder but still achievable within a single Parliament; and the few provisions touching the federal balance or the amending power itself require the added hurdle of state ratification. Layered on top, the basic structure doctrine ensures that however frequently the text is amended, certain features of the Constitution cannot be legislated away by any majority, however large.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 368 lays down the procedure for amendment by Parliament in exercise of its constituent power.
• An amendment bill can be introduced only in Parliament, never in a state legislature, and needs no prior presidential permission.
• There is no joint-sitting mechanism for constitutional amendment bills, unlike ordinary legislation.
• Ratification requires resolutions by not less than half the State Legislatures, with no prescribed time limit.

Mains

• Discuss how the three amendment procedures reflect a balance between constitutional flexibility and rigidity. (GS2)
• Examine the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati to Minerva Mills and its effect on Parliament's amending power. (GS2)
• "A limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution." Evaluate this observation of the Supreme Court. (GS2)

FAQ

Q1. Which article of the Constitution deals with the amendment procedure? Article 368 lays down the procedure for Parliament to amend the Constitution by addition, variation, or repeal.

Q2. Can every provision of the Constitution be amended in the same way? No. Some provisions can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority outside Article 368, most others need a special majority under Article 368, and a smaller set affecting the federal structure additionally needs ratification by half the State Legislatures.

Q3. Is there a joint sitting of Parliament for a constitutional amendment bill if the two Houses disagree? No. Unlike ordinary legislation, Article 368 provides no mechanism for a joint sitting; each House must pass the amendment bill separately by the required majority.

Q4. Can Parliament amend the Constitution to remove judicial review? No. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills (1980) held judicial review to be a basic feature that cannot be taken away even through a constitutional amendment.

Q5. What happened when a provision requiring ratification was amended without it? In Kihoto Hollohon (1993), the Supreme Court invalidated Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule because it altered the jurisdiction of courts without the state ratification that Article 368(2) requires for such changes.

Quick Revision

• Article 368: Parliament's power and procedure to amend the Constitution.
• Three amendment routes: simple majority, special majority, special majority plus ratification by half the states.
• No joint sitting exists for constitutional amendment bills.
• Presidential assent to an amendment bill has been obligatory since a 1971 amendment.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): basic structure doctrine — certain features unamendable.
• Minerva Mills (1980): struck down unlimited amending power added by the 42nd Amendment; judicial review is a basic feature.
• Kihoto Hollohon (1993): Tenth Schedule Paragraph 7 invalid for want of ratification under Article 368(2).

Sources

• Constitution of India — Article 368 — Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department.
• Supreme Court of India — official judgments portal — for Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), and Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1993).

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.