Amendment of the Constitution: Procedure and majorities

Statement 1 is correct: a Constitution Amendment Bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member, and it does not need the President's prior permission. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 368(2) requires the special majority in each House, so the Rajya Sabha has exactly the same power as the Lok Sabha and can, in effect, block the bill. Because there is no joint sitting for such bills, the Lok Sabha cannot override a Rajya Sabha defeat.

Only three can be changed by a simple majority outside Article 368. Citizenship (acquisition and termination) is left to Parliament by Article 11, delimitation of constituencies is done under laws made under Articles 82 and 327, and Legislative Councils are created or abolished under Article 169 on a resolution of the State Assembly. Representation of States in Parliament, however, is expressly in the proviso to Article 368(2), so it needs a special majority and ratification by half the States.

Statement-I is correct: under Article 368(2), an amendment bill must be passed by each House separately by the special majority. Statement-II is incorrect: the joint sitting under Article 108 is available only for ordinary bills when the Houses disagree; it does not apply to Money Bills or to Constitution Amendment Bills. If one House rejects an amendment bill, the bill simply fails. Since Statement-II is false, it cannot explain Statement-I.

Statement 2 is correct: several provisions, such as admission or establishment of new States (Article 2), formation of new States and alteration of boundaries (Article 3) and creation or abolition of Legislative Councils (Article 169), can be changed by a simple majority of Parliament, and Articles 4(2) and 169(3) say such laws are not deemed amendments under Article 368. Statement 1 is incorrect: the federal provisions in the proviso to Article 368(2) need ratification by half the State legislatures, so the States do take part.

The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 added Article 368(1), which says that Parliament may amend the Constitution 'in exercise of its constituent power'. It also added Article 13(4), so that Article 13 does not apply to an amendment, and made the President's assent to an amendment bill obligatory. These changes answered Golaknath (1967), which had treated an amendment as 'law' under Article 13 and so barred the abridgement of Fundamental Rights. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld the 24th Amendment.

Statement 2 is correct: under Article 368(2), the bill must be passed in each House separately by a special majority, that is, a majority of the total membership of that House and two-thirds of the members present and voting. Statement 1 is incorrect: an amendment can be initiated only by introducing a bill in either House of Parliament; a State legislature has no power to start one. The States come in only at the later stage of ratification, and only for the federal provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368(2).

Both statements are correct. Unlike the USA, where amendments can be proposed by a convention, or Switzerland, which uses a referendum, India has no special body such as a constituent convention and no referendum for amendment; the power rests with Parliament under Article 368. The special majority in Article 368(2) has two parts that must both be met in each House: a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. This is stricter than the special majority used for some other matters.

Neither statement is correct. The basic structure doctrine applies to an amendment of any Part of the Constitution, not only Part III; for example, in Minerva Mills (1980) the Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 itself, and in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) it tested the Tenth Schedule. Statement 2 is also wrong: State ratification is only a procedural requirement for federal provisions. Even an amendment passed by special majority and ratified by every State is void if it destroys a basic feature, because the limit is on substance.

All three statements are correct (d). Statement 1 is right: Part IXA (Articles 243P to 243ZG), added by the 74th Amendment (1992), covers Municipalities. Statement 2 is right: Part XVIII (Articles 352 to 360) covers Emergency provisions. Statement 3 is right: Part XX has a single Article, 368, on amending the Constitution. So options (a), (b) and (c), which leave one out, are wrong.

Notice other key Parts: Part III for Fundamental Rights, Part IV for Directive Principles, Part IVA for Fundamental Duties, and Part IX for Panchayats (73rd Amendment). Part IXB covers cooperative societies (97th Amendment). Knowing the big Parts by number saves time in such questions.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →