Overview of Constitutional Amendments (List and Classification)

Amendments overview list refers to the framework under Article 368 through which Parliament exercises its constituent power to add, vary, or repeal provisions of the Constitution, and to the way these amendments are grouped by the kind of majority and consent they require. India's Constitution is neither purely rigid nor purely flexible: some provisions change with an ordinary law, most need a special majority in Parliament, and a smaller federal category additionally needs approval from half the states. Understanding this classification, along with the case law that has shaped it, is essential to reading any individual amendment correctly.

The Constituent Power Under Article 368

Article 368 vests Parliament with the power to amend any part of the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal," but only through the procedure the article itself lays down. An amendment can be initiated only by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament — never in a state legislature — and it may be moved by a minister or a private member without needing the President's prior permission. The Bill must clear each House separately by a special majority: a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting if the two Houses disagree, unlike the process for ordinary legislation. Once passed by both Houses, the Bill goes to the President, who is required to give assent; after assent, the Constitution stands amended in the terms of the Act. Article 368 also clarifies that no authority outside this procedure can amend the Constitution.

Classification of Constitutional Amendments

Although Article 368 is the general amending provision, not every constitutional change actually goes through it. Some articles allow Parliament to alter specific matters by an ordinary law passed with a simple majority, and such changes are expressly not treated as amendments "for the purposes of Article 368." This produces three distinct routes.

For the third category, the proviso to Article 368(2) lists the specific matters — such as Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, 241, and 279A, and provisions touching Chapters relating to the judiciary and Union-state legislative relations — that trigger the ratification requirement. There is no time limit within which states must ratify, and once at least half the states have passed the resolution, the Bill can be presented to the President for assent.

Basic Structure Doctrine and the Limits on Amending Power

The scope of Article 368 has been tested repeatedly before the Supreme Court. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), a thirteen-judge bench held that while Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is wide, it cannot be used to alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution — features such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government were treated as unamendable. The Court reasoned that an amendment destroying these basic features would be beyond the power conferred by Article 368, regardless of following the correct procedure.

Parliament responded with the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368 to declare that 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 two clauses, holding that a limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure, and that Parliament cannot use that limited power to convert itself into an unlimited one. The judgment identified the limited nature of the amending power, judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as basic features that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy.

The doctrine has also been applied to amendments affecting the ratification requirement itself. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which sought to bar judicial review of decisions on disqualification under the anti-defection law — was invalid because it had not been ratified by the states as required by the proviso to Article 368(2), even though the rest of the Tenth Schedule amendment was upheld.

Why the Classification Matters

The three-track classification exists because not every provision carries the same constitutional weight. Administrative and procedural matters — such as parliamentary rules or the number of Supreme Court judges — can be adjusted by ordinary legislative majority since they do not touch the Constitution's federal or rights-based architecture. Provisions that shape the balance of power between the Union and the states demand the extra safeguard of state ratification, reflecting India's federal character. Everything else, including the Fundamental Rights chapter, sits under the general special-majority procedure of Article 368, itself now bounded by the basic structure doctrine.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• The exact wording and numbering of Article 368(1) and (2), and the proviso listing matters needing state ratification.
• Case-to-doctrine matching: Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure), Minerva Mills (limited amending power), Kihoto Hollohon (Tenth Schedule ratification).
• Distinguishing simple-majority changes (outside Article 368) from special-majority constitutional amendments.

Mains

• Critically examine the basic structure doctrine as a limitation on Parliament's constituent power (GS2).
• Discuss how the three modes of amendment reflect the blend of flexibility and rigidity in the Indian Constitution.
• Analyse the significance of Minerva Mills v. Union of India in restoring the balance between amending power and judicial review.

FAQ

Q1. Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368? Parliament can amend any provision by addition, variation, or repeal, but the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that this power cannot be used to destroy the Constitution's basic structure.

Q2. What is the difference between amendments needing simple majority and those needing special majority? Amendments to certain listed matters (such as new state formation or parliamentary rules of procedure) can be made by an ordinary law with a simple majority and are not treated as Article 368 amendments at all; most other provisions require the special majority procedure under Article 368.

Q3. Which amendments require ratification by the states? Amendments affecting federal provisions — such as the President's election, distribution of legislative powers, the Seventh Schedule, representation of states in Parliament, and Article 368 itself — require ratification by not less than half the state legislatures in addition to the special majority in Parliament.

Q4. What did the 42nd Amendment Act change about Article 368, and what happened to that change? The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368 to remove limits on Parliament's amending power and bar judicial review of amendments; the Supreme Court struck down both clauses in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

Q5. Is there a joint sitting of Parliament if the two Houses disagree on a constitutional amendment Bill? No. Unlike ordinary legislation, Article 368 has no provision for a joint sitting of the Houses in case of disagreement over an amendment Bill.

Quick Revision

• Article 368: Parliament's constituent power to amend the Constitution by addition, variation, or repeal.
• Three modes: simple majority (outside Article 368); special majority; special majority plus ratification by half the states.
• Special majority = majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House.
• No joint sitting provision for amendment Bills.
• President must give assent once a Bill is validly passed.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): basic structure doctrine — certain features unamendable.
• Minerva Mills (1980): struck down Article 368(4)-(5) inserted by the 42nd Amendment; limited amending power and judicial review are basic features.
• Kihoto Hollohon (1993): Tenth Schedule Paragraph 7 invalid for want of state ratification.

Sources

• The Constitution of India, Article 368 — legislative.gov.in
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 — Supreme Court of India / Indian Kanoon
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 — Supreme Court of India / Indian Kanoon
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Others, AIR 1993 SC 412 — Indian Kanoon

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.