Part 20 of Indian Constitution, Article 368, Amendments, Case Laws

Part XX of the Constitution of India deals exclusively with the amendment process of the Constitution. Unlike many other Parts that contain several Articles, Part 20 of Indian Constitution consists of only one provision as Article 368. This Article grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution and prescribes the procedure for doing so. This Part of Indian Constitution explains the type of majority required, the role of the President, and when ratification by States becomes necessary. Over time, Article 368 has been shaped by constitutional amendments and landmark judicial decisions that clarified its scope and limitations.

Article 368 of Part 20 of Indian Constitution

Article 368  of the  Part 20 of Indian Constitution provides the procedure and scope for amending the Constitution of India. It defines Parliament’s constituent power, required majorities, State ratification conditions, and related constitutional limitations.

• Article 368 (1): This clause empowers Parliament, exercising its constituent authority, to amend any constitutional provision by addition, variation, or repeal, following the prescribed procedure. It begins with a non obstante clause, overriding other constitutional provisions while using special amendment procedure distinct from ordinary legislation.
• Article 368 (2): Amendment can be initiated only through a Bill introduced in either House of Parliament, not in State Legislatures. The Bill must be passed in each House by a majority of total membership and by two-thirds of members present and voting, reflecting a special majority requirement. After being passed by both Houses with the required special majority, the Bill is presented to the President. The President is constitutionally bound to give assent, and upon assent, the Constitution stands amended according to the Bill’s provisions.
• Article 368 (2)(a): Amendments affecting Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, 241, and 279A require ratification by at least half of State Legislatures. These provisions relate to federal structure, executive powers, and Goods and Services Tax framework, thereby necessitating State participation.
• Article 368 (2)(b): Changes concerning Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI require State ratification. These Chapters deal with the Union Judiciary, High Courts in States, and legislative relations, directly impacting federal balance.
• Article 368 (2)(c): Any amendment altering provisions in the Seventh Schedule Lists must be ratified by not less than one-half of the States. Since these Lists distribute legislative powers between Union and States, State approval safeguards cooperative federalism.
• Article 368 (2)(d): Amendments modifying the representation of States in Parliament require ratification by half of the States. This ensures that changes affecting federal representation at the national level cannot be made unilaterally by Parliament.
• Article 368 (2)(e): If the amendment seeks to change Article 368 itself, ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures is mandatory. This protects the amendment procedure from unilateral alteration and preserves structural stability.
• Article 368 (3): This clause clarifies that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments made under Article 368. Therefore, amendments cannot be invalidated solely for violating Fundamental Rights, distinguishing constituent power from ordinary legislative power.
• Article 368 (4): Inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, this clause declared that no constitutional amendment, including those affecting Part III, could be questioned in any court on any ground, attempting to exclude judicial review.
• Article 368 (5): Also inserted by the 42nd Amendment, this clause stated that there shall be no limitation on Parliament’s constituent power to amend the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court later held that such unlimited power is subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Part 20 of Indian Constitution Amendments

Article 368 of Part 20 of Indian Constitution itself has been modified through constitutional amendments to clarify and expand Parliament’s amending authority.

• Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971: This amendment substituted the heading of Article 368, inserted clause (1), renumbered existing provisions, and added clause (3) to confirm Parliament’s power to amend all parts of the Constitution.
• Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956: It omitted the words “specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule” from Article 368, updating references after reorganization of States.
• Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976: Section 55 inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368, declaring that amendments could not be challenged in court and that Parliament’s amending power had no limitation. However the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case 1980 declared clauses (4) and (5) invalid, restoring judicial review over constitutional amendments under Article 368.

‹ ›

Case Laws related to Part 20 of Indian Constitution

Several landmark judgments have defined the scope, limits, and interpretation of Article 368 under Part 20 of Indian Constitution as highlighted below:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s authority to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and ruled that constitutional amendments are not ordinary laws under Article 13.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights but indicated through dissent that certain core features might be beyond amendment.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, treating amendments as “law” under Article 13, significantly restricting Article 368 power.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court upheld Parliament’s amending authority but introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that essential constitutional features cannot be destroyed.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment and reinforced that judicial review and democracy form part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, affirming that judicial review is part of the basic structure.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): The Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda decision could be tested against the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Court ruled that even laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights forming part of the basic structure.