UPSC CSE Mains 2025

Q12. Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution.

Possible Introductions

Contextual:

Article 368 vests the amending power in Parliament. Unlike the US (rigid) or the UK (flexible), the Indian Constitution adopts a middle path, allowing Parliament to amend most provisions through a legislative process, but with certain checks.

Judicial Reference:

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s amending power but imposed substantive limits through the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Philosophical:

Constitutional amendments in India reflect the balance between continuity & change — enabling flexibility, but preventing arbitrary alteration of foundational principles.

Body

1. Procedural Limitations (Article 368)

• • Types of Amendments:
    • By Simple Majority of Parliament: Used for provisions considered outside Article 368 (e.g., formation of new states, citizenship matters, admission/establishment of new states under Articles 2, 3, and 4).
    • By Special Majority: Most provisions require a majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting in both Houses (e.g., Fundamental Rights, DPSPs).
    • By Special Majority + Ratification: Certain provisions require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures (e.g., election of President, distribution of legislative powers, Supreme Court/High Court jurisdiction, representation of states in Parliament).
  • Mandatory Presidential Assent: Every constitutional amendment bill must receive the President’s assent after being duly passed.
  • No Joint Sitting: If one House rejects an amendment bill, there is no provision for a joint sitting (unlike ordinary laws).
  • No Initiative by States: States cannot initiate amendments; only Parliament can do so.

2. Substantive Limitations

• • Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution, evolved in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and reaffirmed in later cases (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Minerva Mills, SR Bommai).
  • Judicial Review: Amendments are subject to judicial review to ensure they do not abrogate fundamental features like democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial independence, rule of law.
  • Federal Character: Amendments requiring state ratification protect the federal balance; Parliament cannot unilaterally alter the distribution of powers.
  • Individual Rights: Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 14, 19, 21, enjoy judicial protection from amendment that dilutes their essence.
  • Democratic Principles: Universal adult franchise, parliamentary system, and free & fair elections form part of substantive limits.

3. Illustrations of the Doctrine

• • Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but not the basic structure.
  • Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to immunise the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review.
  • Minerva Mills (1980): Limited Parliament’s amending power to preserve harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

Sweet Spot – Table

Possible Conclusions 

Balanced:

While Parliament enjoys wide amending powers, procedural and substantive limitations ensure that constitutional flexibility does not erode its core values.

Policy-linked:

Judicial doctrines and procedural safeguards together strengthen constitutionalism in India, ensuring amendments align with both democratic will and co