Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional Amendments is part of Indian Polity and Governance. Below are notes on 12 sub-topics, followed by practice MCQs from State PSC and UPSC papers.

Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure

• Article 368 is contained in Part XX of the Constitution, dealing with the Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.
• It empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal of any provision, by exercising its 'constituent power'.
• A Bill for constitutional amendment can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
• Such a Bill can be introduced by a Minister or a private member and does not require prior permission of the President.
• State Legislatures cannot initiate a Bill or a proposal for amending the Constitution under Article 368.
• Article 368 specifies two types of amendments: By Special Majority of Parliament: 1. Requires a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House. Most provisions are amended this way. By Special Majority of Parliament and 2. Ratification by States: In addition to the special majority in Parliament, requires ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by a simple majority (of members present and voting). This applies to provisions related to the federal structure (e.g., election of President, extent of executive power, provisions of Part V, VI, VII, Article 368 itself, etc.).
• Amendments to certain provisions (e.g., formation of new states, creation/abolition of Legislative Councils under Article 169, administration of scheduled areas) can be made by a simple majority of Parliament; these are not deemed to be amendments under Article 368.
• There is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to pass a constitutional amendment Bill.
• After being passed by both Houses (and ratified by states where necessary), the Bill is presented to the President. The President must give assent to the Bill and cannot withhold or return it (mandated by 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971).
• The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is subject to the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Parliament cannot alter the basic structure.
• For amendments requiring state ratification, it is not necessary that all State Legislatures must take action on the Bill; ratification by half of the states is sufficient. State Legislatures can pass or reject the resolution but cannot propose any amendments to the Bill.
• 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971:
• Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• Inserted Clause (3) into Article 368, stating "Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article."
• 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: Added Clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, which declared unlimited constituent power of Parliament and barred judicial review. These clauses were later struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case (1980).
• The 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016 (GST) was an amendment made using the power under Article 368 but did not amend the text of Article 368 itself.
• Implementing concepts like 'One Nation One Election' would necessitate amendments to various Articles, including those related to the duration of Parliament (e.g., Article 83) and State Legislatures (e.g., Article 172).

Challenges to Constitutional Amendments: Legal avenues and outcomes

• Legal Avenue: Constitutional amendments can be challenged in the Supreme Court and High Courts through Judicial Review (Articles 13, 32, 226).
• Grounds for Challenge: Primarily, violation of the "Basic Structure Doctrine" established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which holds that Parliament's amending power (Art. 368) does not extend to altering the fundamental features of the Constitution.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Challenged the 39th Amendment (specifically Article 329A). SC applied Basic Structure, striking down provisions that placed the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial review.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Challenged the 42nd Amendment (Sections 4 & 55). SC struck down these provisions, reaffirming that judicial review, harmony between Fundamental Rights & Directive Principles, and limited amending power are Basic Structure features.
• P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. (1987): Challenged the 32nd Amendment (specifically a provision in Art. 371D). SC struck down a clause allowing the state government to modify or annul Administrative Tribunal orders, holding it violated judicial review (Basic Structure).
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu (1992): Challenged the 52nd Amendment (Anti-defection law). SC upheld the amendment's validity but struck down Para 7, which excluded judicial review of the Speaker's decision on disqualification, as violative of judicial review (Basic Structure).
• I.R. Coehlo v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Reaffirmed that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are open to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.

Constitutional Amendments related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

1st Amendment Act, 1951: 1.

• Added Article 15(4) enabling special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• Added Article 19(6) allowing the State to nationalize any trade or business.
• Added Articles 31A and 31B to protect certain laws (e.g., land reforms) from being challenged on the grounds of contravention of Fundamental Rights (FRs), particularly Articles 14, 19, and 31.
• Added Ninth Schedule to protect laws placed therein from judicial review.
• Enacted to overcome early judicial interpretations of FRs (e.g., Champakam Dorairajan case). 24th Amendment Act, 1971: 2.
• Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368 (overruling Golaknath case verdict).
• Made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill. 25th Amendment Act, 1971: 3.
• Inserted new Article 31C.
• Article 31C (first part): Law enacted to give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) under Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be declared void on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14, 19, or 31. This part was upheld by Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
• Article 31C (second part): Any such law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall not be questioned in any court. This part was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
• First amendment to establish primacy of specific DPSPs (Art 39(b) & (c)) over certain FRs (Art 14, 19, 31). 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (Mini-Constitu4. tion):
• Preamble: Added 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity'.
• Fundamental Duties: Added Part IV-A (Article 51A) for Fundamental Duties (10 duties), based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): Added three new DPSPs:
• Article 39A: To promote equal justice and provide free legal aid to the poor.
• Article 43A: To secure the participation of workers in the management of industries.
• Article 48A: To protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife.
• Article 31C: Extended the scope of Article 31C to all DPSPs, giving them precedence over Articles 14 and 19. This extension was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
• Subject Lists: Transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, including Education, Forests, Protection of wild animals and birds, Weights and measures, and Administration of justice. 44th Amendment Act, 1978: 5.
• Right to Property: Deleted Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31).
• Right to Property: Made a legal right under Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Added a new DPSP to Article 38, requiring the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities (Article 38(2)).
• Emergency Provisions: Replaced "internal disturbance" with "armed rebellion" as a ground for proclaiming National Emergency. 81st Amendment Act, 2000: 6.
• Added Article 16(4B) empowering the State to treat unfilled reserved vacancies of a year as a separate class of vacancies to be filled in any succeeding year(s), not subject to the 50% ceiling rule for total reserved vacancies of that year. 86th Amendment Act, 2002: 7.
• Fundamental Right to Education: Made education a Fundamental Right by inserting new Article 21A, providing for free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Substituted the original Article 45, which now mandates the State to endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.
• Fundamental Duty: Added a new Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(k), obligating parents/guardians to provide opportunities for education to their child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years. 97th Amendment Act, 2011: 8.
• Fundamental Right: Made the right to form cooperative societies a Fundamental Right (Article 19(1)(c)).
• Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP): Inserted new Article 43B, promoting cooperative societies.
• Part IXB: Added a new Part IXB (The Cooperative Societies) in the Constitution. Judicial Interpretations regarding FRs & 9. DPSPs:
• Champakam Dorairajan case (1951): Supreme Court ruled that FRs prevail over DPSPs. DPSPs are subordinate to FRs. Parliament can amend FRs to implement DPSPs.
• Golaknath case (1967): Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. FRs are transcendental and immutable.
• Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, but cannot alter the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Upheld the first part of Article 31C (primacy for Art 39(b) & (c) over 14, 19, 31) but invalidated the second part (declaration not questionable).
• Minerva Mills case (1980): Supreme Court struck down the extension of Article 31C (by 42nd Amendment) that gave precedence to all DPSPs over Articles 14 and 19. Reaffirmed that the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is a part of the Basic Structure.

Federalism and Constitutional Amendments: Role of states and implications for the federal structure

• Indian Constitution's amendment procedure (Art 368) is partly rigid, partly flexible, reflecting its federal nature.
• Amendments affecting the federal structure (e.g., distribution of powers, Seventh Schedule, election of President, Supreme Court & High Courts, representation of states in Parliament, or Art 368 itself) require: Special majority (2/3rd members 1. present & voting, plus majority of total membership) in both Houses of Parliament. Ratification by not less than half of the 2. state legislatures by a simple majority.
• Role of States in India for Constitutional Amendments: States can ratify federal amendments 1. but have no power to initiate constitutional amendments to the Union Constitution. There is no timeframe prescribed for 2. state ratification of amendments.
• Parliament's power over States (not Art 368 amendments): Parliament can form new states, alter areas, boundaries, or names of existing states by a simple majority (Articles 3 & 4), after consulting the concerned state legislature (consultation is not binding). This is not considered an amendment under Art 368.
• Comparative Amendment Procedures in other Federations: USA: Amendments can be proposed by 1. 2/3rds vote in both Houses of Congress OR by a national convention called by 2/3rds of state legislatures. Ratification requires 3/4ths of state legislatures or state conventions. Switzerland: 50,000 citizens can re2. quest a constitutional amendment through popular initiative. Requires a double majority (majority of people and majority of cantons). Australia: Amendments generally re3. quire a double majority (majority of voters nationwide and a majority of voters in a majority of states). The federal government has limited direct control over the constitutions of its units (states).
• A change in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the States can only be done by amending the Constitution under Article 368, specifically requiring ratification by states.

Historical Evolution of Amending Power: Major cases and their contribution to the doctrine of basic structure

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):
• SC held Parliament's power to amend under Art 368 includes Fundamental Rights (FRs).
• Amendment under Art 368 is not 'law' under Art 13; thus not subject to FR violation.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
• Reiterated Shankari Prasad: Parliament can amend any part, including FRs; Art 368 amendment not 'law' under Art 13.
• Some judges (Hidayatullah, Mudholkar) expressed doubt regarding absolute amending power.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
• Overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh judgments.
• Held FRs are "transcendental and immutable," beyond Parliament's amending power.
• Amendment under Art 368 is 'law' within Art 13's meaning, thus subject to Art 13(2).
• Ruled Art 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power.
• Approved 'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling' for constitutional interpretation.
• Prompted Parliament to enact the 24th, 25th, and 26th Constitutional Amendment Acts.
• 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971):
• Enacted to nullify the Golaknath ruling.
• Amended Art 13 and Art 368.
• Declared Parliament has power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs.
• Stated an amendment under Art 368 is not 'law' for Art 13.
• Made presidential assent to amendment bills obligatory.
• 25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971):
• Added Article 31C.
• Shielded laws implementing DPSP under Art 39(b) & (c) from challenge under Art 14, 19, or 31.
• Initially included a clause making Parliament's declaration (that a law implements DPSP) immune from judicial review (struck down in Kesavananda Bharati).
• Caused by R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) (bank nationalisation, compensation).
• 26th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971):
• Abolished privy purses and privileges of former rulers.
• Caused by Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1970).
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
• Overruled Golaknath judgment.
• Upheld validity of 24th CAA (Parliament can amend FRs).
• Propounded the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution'.
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but cannot alter, abridge, or destroy its 'basic structure'.
• Struck down the second part of Art 31C (barring judicial review of declaration) as it violated judicial review (a basic feature).
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) / Election Case:
• First application of Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Struck down Article 329A (introduced by 39th Amendment, 1975) for placing election disputes of PM/Speaker beyond judicial review.
• Declared free and fair elections, rule of law, and judicial review as basic features.
• 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976):
• Added 'Socialist', 'Secular', 'Integrity' to Preamble.
• Amended Art 368 (clauses 4 & 5) to declare Parliament's amending power absolute and immune from judicial review (later struck down in Minerva Mills).
• 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978):
• Removed Right to Property from FRs (Art 31 and 19(1)(f)), made it a legal right (Art 300A).
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):
• Applied Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Art 368 (inserted by 42nd CAA) as unconstitutional, affirming limited amending power.
• Reaffirmed judicial review and balance between FRs & DPSPs as basic features.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):
• Upheld Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Ruled doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati judgment date).
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu (1992):
• Upheld 52nd Amendment Act (Antidefection law).
• Declared Speaker's decision on disqualification subject to judicial review (basic feature).
• P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. (1987):
• Struck down a provision of the 32nd Amendment Act relating to administrative tribunals for excluding judicial review.

Initiation and Passage of Amendment Bills: Legislative procedure in Parliament

• A Bill for Constitutional Amendment can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
• It can be introduced by a minister or a private member.
• Prior recommendation or sanction of the President is NOT required for introducing a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• The Bill cannot be initiated by State Legislatures or the President.
• The Bill must be passed in 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 the members of that House present and voting.
• There is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses in case of a disagreement (deadlock) on a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• If the amendment seeks to change federal provisions, it also requires ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states by a simple majority.
• There is no time limit within which states must give their consent for ratification.
• After being passed by Parliament (and ratified by states, if required), the Bill is presented to the President for assent.
• The President MUST give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill; the President cannot withhold assent or return it for reconsideration (mandated by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971).
• The basic features/structure of the Constitution cannot be amended (established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973).
• The 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill was the legislative origin for the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act.
• The First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, was made by the Interim/Provisional Parliament (1950-52).

Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: Major judicial pronouncements and landmark judgments

• Parliament can pass a constitutional amendment to circumvent a Supreme Court decision, provided it does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Regular laws are subject to judicial review based on the existing constitutional framework.
• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Held that constitutional amendments under Art. 368 are not "law" under Art. 13; Fundamental Rights are amendable.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Upheld the ruling in Shankari Prasad.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): Held that a constitutional amendment under Art. 368 is a "law" within the meaning of Art. 13(2), making Fundamental Rights unamendable. Introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Overruled Golaknath on the "law" definition for Art. 368. Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine" limiting this power (amendments cannot alter basic features).
• 39th Amendment Act, 1975: Introduced Article 329A, placing election disputes concerning the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Speaker beyond the purview of judicial review.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down Clause (4) of Article 329A (introduced by 39th Amendment) as it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution (specifically, judicial review, free and fair elections, and rule of law).
• 44th Amendment Act, 1978: Repealed Article 329A.
• 99th Amendment Act, 2014: Established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, holding that they violated the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Key Constitutional Amendments and their Impact: (e.g., 1st, 42nd, 44th, 73rd, 74th, 97th, 99th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 105th)

• 1st Amendment Act, 1951:
• Added 9th Schedule to protect land reform laws from judicial review.
• Added Article 15(4), empowering states to make special provisions for advancement of SEBCs, SCs, STs.
• Introduced reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression (Art 19(2)).
• Added Articles 31A and 31B.
• Enacted by Provisional Parliament before the first general elections.
• 4th Amendment Act, 1955:
• Empowered state to compulsorily acquire private property for public purpose (Eminent Domain concept).
• 7th Amendment Act, 1956:
• Reorganized states on linguistic lines.
• Abolished the distinction between Part A, B, C, D states.
• Provided for appointment of a common Governor for two or more states.
• Abolished the institution of Rajpramukh.
• Provided for additional judges for High Courts.
• Inserted Article 372A (President's power to adapt laws).
• 8th Amendment Act, 1960:
• Extended reservation of seats for SCs, STs, and Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another 10 years (till 1970).
• 13th Amendment Act, 1962:
• Granted special status to Nagaland.
• 14th Amendment Act, 1962:
• Incorporated Puducherry (Pondicherry) into the Union of India.
• 15th Amendment Act, 1963:
• Increased retirement age of High Court judges from 60 to 62.
• Empowered Parliament to determine the age of Supreme Court judges.
• 16th Amendment Act, 1963:
• Enabled the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India (Art 19(2), (3), (4)).
• Included "Sovereignty and Integrity of India" in oaths/affirmations.
• 18th Amendment Act, 1966:
• Clarified that 'State' in Article 3 includes 'Union Territories' for the purpose of forming new states or altering areas/boundaries of existing states.
• 19th Amendment Act, 1966:
• Abolished election tribunals; transferred the power to hear election petitions to High Courts.
• 21st Amendment Act, 1967:
• Added Sindhi language to the 8th Schedule.
• 24th Amendment Act, 1971:
• Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• 26th Amendment Act, 1971:
• Abolished privy purses and privileges of the rulers of former Indian states.
• Repealed Articles 291 and 362.
• 27th Amendment Act, 1971:
• Granted statehood to Manipur, Tripura, and Meghalaya.
• 31st Amendment Act, 1973:
• Increased Lok Sabha seats from 525 to 545.
• 35th Amendment Act, 1974:
• Made Sikkim an 'Associate State' by adding Article 2A and the 10th Schedule.
• 36th Amendment Act, 1975:
• Made Sikkim a full-fledged state of the Indian Union, deleting Article 2A and the 10th Schedule.
• 38th Amendment Act, 1975:
• Made the declaration of emergency by the President non-justiciable.
• Empowered President to declare different proclamations of National Emergency on different grounds in different parts of the country.
• 39th Amendment Act, 1975:
• Placed disputes relating to President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Speaker beyond the jurisdiction of all courts.
• 40th Amendment Act, 1976:
• Vested in the Union Government all mines, minerals, and other things of value lying in the ocean within India's territorial waters, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
• 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (Mini-Constitution):
• Added 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity' to the Preamble.
• Added Fundamental Duties (Part IVA, Article 51A).
• Added new Directive Principles: Art 39A (Free legal aid), Art 43A (Participation of workers in management), Art 48A (Environmental protection).
• Made President bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Transferred five subjects from State List to Concurrent List: Education, Forests, Weights & Measures, Protection of Wild Animals & Birds, Administration of Justice.
• Extended the term of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from 5 to 6 years (later reversed).
• Curtailed judicial review powers of High Courts and Supreme Court.
• Provided for Administrative Tribunals (Part XIVA).
• Made proclamation of emergency immune from judicial review.
• Enabled President to declare emergency in part of India.
• 43rd Amendment Act, 1977:
• Restored the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts regarding judicial review and issuance of writs.
• Repealed some provisions of the 42nd Amendment.
• Repealed Article 32A, which deprived the Supreme Court of the power to consider the constitutional validity of a state law.
• 44th Amendment Act, 1978:
• Removed Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights (Art 19(1) (f) and Art 31), making it a legal right under Art 300A (Part XII).
• Replaced 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' for declaring National Emergency (Art 352).
• Mandated that the President can declare National Emergency only on the written recommendation of the Cabinet.
• Provided that Fundamental Rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during National Emergency.
• Empowered the President to send back the advice of the Council of Ministers for reconsideration (once).
• Restored the original term of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies to 5 years.
• Restored the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Omitted Article 166(4) related to the Governor.
• 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 (Anti-defection Law):
• Added the 10th Schedule, providing for disqualification of MPs/MLAs on grounds of defection.
• Strengthened the powers of the Speaker/Chairman in matters of defection.
• 53rd Amendment Act, 1986:
• Granted full statehood to Mizoram.
• 55th Amendment Act, 1986:
• Granted full statehood to Arunachal Pradesh.
• 56th Amendment Act, 1987:
• Granted full statehood to Goa.
• 58th Amendment Act, 1987:
• Provided for an authoritative text of the Constitution in Hindi language.
• 61st Amendment Act, 1989:
• Reduced the voting age for Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections from 21 years to 18 years.
• 65th Amendment Act, 1990:
• Established a multi-member National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• 69th Amendment Act, 1991:
• Granted special status to Delhi, designating it as the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
• Provided for a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers for Delhi.
• 70th Amendment Act, 1992:
• Included the members of the Legislative Assemblies of NCT Delhi and UT Puducherry in the electoral college for the President.
• 71st Amendment Act, 1992:
• Added Konkani, Manipuri, and Nepali languages to the 8th Schedule, increasing the total to 18.
• 73rd Amendment Act, 1992:
• Granted constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
• Added Part IX ("The Panchayats") (Articles 243 to 243O) and the 11th Schedule.
• Provided for a three-tier system of Panchayats (Gram, Intermediate, District).
• Mandated periodic (five-yearly) elections to Panchayats.
• Provided for reservation of one-third of seats for women in all Panchayat tiers.
• Conferred constitutional status on Gram Sabha.
• Came into force on 24th April 1993.
• 74th Amendment Act, 1992:
• Granted constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies (Municipalities).
• Added Part IXA ("The Municipalities") (Articles 243P to 243ZG) and the 12th Schedule.
• Provided for three types of Municipalities: Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation.
• Mandated periodic (five-yearly) elections to Municipalities.
• Provided for reservation of one-third of seats for women in Municipalities.
• Came into force on 1st June 1993.
• 75th Amendment Act, 1994:
• Provided for the establishment of State-level Rent Tribunals.
• 77th Amendment Act, 1995:
• Provided for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (by inserting Article 16(4A)).
• 79th Amendment Act, 1999:
• Extended the reservation of seats for SCs, STs, and Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another 10 years (till 2010).
• 80th Amendment Act, 2000:
• Gave effect to the recommendations of the Tenth Finance Commission regarding the distribution of taxes between the Union and the States.
• 81st Amendment Act, 2000:
• Protected SC/ST reservation in filling backlog vacancies, nullifying the "50% ceiling rule" for these vacancies (by inserting Article 16(4B)).
• 82nd Amendment Act, 2000:
• Provided for relaxation in qualifying marks/standards in any examination or evaluation for reservation in promotion for SCs/STs.
• 83rd Amendment Act, 2000:
• Exempted Arunachal Pradesh from the provision of reservation for Scheduled Castes in Panchayats.
• 84th Amendment Act, 2001:
• Froze the readjustment of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies based on the 1991 census until 2026.
• 86th Amendment Act, 2002:
• Made elementary education a Fundamental Right (inserted Article 21A: Right to Education for children aged 6 to 14 years).
• Modified Article 45 (DPSP) to provide for early childhood care for children below 6 years.
• Added a new Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(k) (parents/guardians to provide educational opportunities to children between 6 and 14 years).
• 89th Amendment Act, 2003:
• Bifurcated the National Commission for SCs and STs into two separate bodies: National Commission for SCs (Art 338) and National Commission for STs (Art 338A).
• 91st Amendment Act, 2003:
• Restricted the size of the Council of Ministers (Centre & States) to 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha/ Legislative Assembly (inserted Art 75(1A) & 164(1A)).
• Provided that the total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a state shall not be less than 12.
• Removed the anti-defection law exemption for a 'split' in a political party (deleted para 3 of 10th Schedule).
• 92nd Amendment Act, 2003:
• Added Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santhali languages to the 8th Schedule, increasing the total number of languages to 22.
• 93rd Amendment Act, 2005:
• Enabled the state to make special provisions for the advancement of SEBCs, SCs, and STs in admission to private unaided educational institutions (inserted Article 15(5)).
• 94th Amendment Act, 2006:
• Exempted Bihar from the obligation of having a Tribal Welfare Minister, instead specifying Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha.
• 95th Amendment Act, 2009:
• Extended the reservation of seats for SCs, STs, and Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another 10 years (till 2020).
• 96th Amendment Act, 2011:
• Substituted "Oriya" with "Odia" in the 8th Schedule.
• 97th Amendment Act, 2011:
• Granted constitutional status and protection to cooperative societies.
• Made the right to form cooperative societies a Fundamental Right (Art 19(1)(c)).
• Included a new Directive Principle on the promotion of cooperative societies (Art 43B).
• Added a new Part IXB ("The Cooperative Societies") (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT).
• 98th Amendment Act, 2012:
• Inserted Article 371J, making special provisions for the HyderabadKarnataka region of Karnataka.
• 99th Amendment Act, 2014:
• Established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Declared unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court in 2015.
• 100th Amendment Act, 2015:
• Implemented the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh.
• Involved the exchange of enclaves, transfer of territories, and demarcation of undemarcated boundaries, affecting the states of West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura.
• 101st Amendment Act, 2016 (GST):
• Introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
• Abolished various indirect taxes levied by Centre and States.
• Inserted Article 246A for special provision with respect to GST.
• Formed the GST Council (inserted Article 279A).
• Omitted entries 52 and 55 from Union List and 92, 92C from State List (related to taxes).
• GST was the 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• GST is a destination-based tax designed to bring transparency.
• 102nd Amendment Act, 2018:
• Granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) (inserted Article 338B).
• Empowered the President to specify the socially and educationally backward classes in relation to a state or union territory.
• This Bill was the 123rd Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• 103rd Amendment Act, 2019:
• Provided for 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and admissions to educational institutions (inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6)).
• This Bill was the 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• 104th Amendment Act, 2020:
• Extended the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another 10 years (till January 25, 2030).
• Discontinued the reserved seats for Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures.
• 105th Amendment Act, 2021:
• Restored the power of state governments to identify and specify their own Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) (State OBC list).
• Amended Articles 338B, 342A, and 366(26C).
• 106th Amendment Act, 2023:
• Provides for reservation of one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• The reservation will come into effect after the delimitation exercise based on the first Census conducted after the commencement of this Act.
• The reservation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of 15 years from its commencement, with provisions for extension by Parliament.

Limitations on Amending Power: The 'Basic Structure Doctrine' (Genesis, evolution, and major cases like Kesavananda Bharati)

Genesis (Pre-1973): 1. Sankari Prasad Case (1951) & Sajjan Singh 2. Case (1965): Supreme Court (SC) held Parliament's power to amend under Article 368 included Fundamental Rights (FRs). Article 368 amendments were not considered 'law' under Article 13. Golaknath Case (1967): SC reversed earlier 3. stance; declared FRs 'transcendental' and unamendable. Held Constitutional Amendment is a 'law' under Article 13, thus subject to FRs. Parliament cannot take away or abridge FRs. Parliamentary Response (24th Amendment 4. Act, 1971): Parliament passed the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) to counter Golaknath. It affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs (by amending Article 13 and Article 368). It clarified that amendments under Article 368 are not 'laws' under Article 13. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala 5. Case (1973): Landmark Judgment (April 24, 1973): SC 6. upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act. Basic Structure Doctrine Propounded: While 7. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, it cannot alter, destroy, or abrogate the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution. Overruled Golaknath: Constitutional amend8. ments are not 'laws' under Article 13. Limited Amending Power: Declared Parlia9. ment's power to amend under Article 368 as 'limited'. Judicial Review: Established judicial review 10. over constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the basic structure. No Exhaustive Definition: SC did not provide 11. an exhaustive list of basic structure elements, stating it is to be identified on a case-by-case basis. The Constitution itself does not define 'basic structure'. Post-Kesavananda Evolution: 12. 42nd Amendment Act (1976): Attempted to 13. remove limitations on Parliament's amending power by adding clauses 4 & 5 to Article 368, stating that no amendment could be questioned in any court and there was no limitation on Parliament's constituent power. Minerva Mills Case (1980): SC struck down 14. clauses 4 & 5 of Article 368 (inserted by 42nd CAA) as unconstitutional. Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine. Held that the "limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution" is itself a basic feature. Emphasized harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as part of the basic structure. Waman Rao Case (1981): Affirmed that the 15. Basic Structure Doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda judgment). Elements of Basic Structure (Non-exhaustive 16. list identified by SC over various judgments): Supremacy of the Constitution. 17. Sovereign, Democratic, Republican nature of 18. the Indian polity. Secular character of the Constitution. 19. Federal character of the Constitution. 20. Separation of powers between the legislature, 21. the executive, and the judiciary. Unity and integrity of the nation. 22. Judicial review. 23. Limited power of Parliament to amend the 24. Constitution. Freedom and dignity of the individual. 25. Parliamentary system. 26. Rule of law. 27. Harmony and balance between Fundamental 28. Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Effective access to justice. 29. Independence of Judiciary. 30. Free and fair elections. 31. Welfare state (implied through Preamble, 32. DPSP harmony, and democratic-republican structure). Key Clarifications: 33. The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial 34. innovation by the Supreme Court, not an act of Parliament, nor is it explicitly defined in the Constitution. Parliament's power to amend under Article 35. 368 is limited; it cannot alter the basic structure. Fundamental Rights are an integral part of 36. the basic structure (through concepts like freedom, dignity, and harmony with DPSPs) and cannot be repealed if it affects the basic structure. The doctrine is a form of judicial review used 37. to test the legality of constitutional amendments.

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy in the context of amendments

• India operates under Constitutional Supremacy, not Parliamentary Sovereignty (unlike UK).
• Article 368 grants Parliament power to amend the Constitution.
• Shankari Prasad Case (1951): SC held Parliament's power to amend FRs is absolute; Art 368 is constituent power, not subject to Art 13.
• Golaknath Case (1967): SC reversed, held Parliament cannot amend FRs; Art 368 power is legislative, subject to Art 13.
• 24th Amendment Act (1971): Passed to nullify Golaknath verdict; affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part, including FRs; made Art 13 inapplicable to Art 368.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): SC upheld 24th Amendment but introduced Basic Structure Doctrine. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but cannot alter its 'Basic Structure'. This established a fundamental limit on amending power.
• Minerva Mills Case (1980): Reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down parts of 42nd Amendment; established Judicial Review as a basic feature.
• Therefore, Parliament's power under Article 368 is not absolute; it cannot amend every part of the Constitution (specifically, the Basic Structure).
• Parliament is indeed the supreme legislative body elected by the people, but its authority is subordinate to the Constitution and judicial review.

Role of the President in Constitutional Amendments: Assent to amendment bills

• The President shall give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill (CAB).
• The President has no veto power over a CAB; cannot withhold assent or return it for reconsideration.
• This mandatory assent provision was introduced by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
• The 24th Amendment Act modified Article 368(2) to make President's assent obligatory.
• A CAB does not require prior recommendation of the President for introduction in Parliament.
• CABs must be passed by both Houses of Parliament by a special majority; there is no provision for a joint sitting.

Types of Amendments: By simple majority, special majority, and special majority with state ratification

• General Provisions for Constitutional Amendment Bills (CABs):
• Can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
• Can be introduced by a Minister or a Private Member.
• Does not require prior permission of the President.
• Must be passed separately by each House by a special majority (and state ratification where required).
• No provision for a joint sitting of both Houses for CABs.
• President must give assent to the CAB; cannot withhold assent or return it for reconsideration.
• The Parliament cannot amend the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973).
• Type 1: Amendment by Simple Majority of Parliament
• These amendments are not considered as amendments under Article 368.
• Requires a majority of the members present and voting in each House.
• Provisions amended:
• Admission or establishment of new states (Article 2).
• Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states (Article 3, 4).
• Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states (Article 169).
• Quorum in Parliament (Article 100).
• Salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament.
• Rules of procedure in Parliament.
• Privileges of Parliament, its members, and its committees.
• Use of English language in Parliament.
• Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.
• Conferment of more jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
• Official language of the Union or states (for certain aspects like use).
• Citizenship acquisition and termination.
• Administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes (Fifth Schedule).
• Administration of tribal areas (Sixth Schedule).
• Type 2: Amendment by Special Majority of Parliament (under Article 368)
• Requires a majority of the total membership of each House AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.
• Provisions amended:
• Fundamental Rights.
• Directive Principles of State Policy.
• All other provisions that are not covered by the first and third categories.
• Example: Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) can be amended by a special majority (subject to basic structure).
• Type 3: Amendment by Special Majority of Parliament and Ratification by States (under Article 368)
• Requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament AND ratification by the legislatures of not less than onehalf of the states by a simple majority.
• Provisions amended (federal features):
• Election of the President and its manner (Articles 54, 55).
• Extent of the executive power of the Union (Article 73) and the states.
• Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
• Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, Concurrent Lists).
• Representation of states in Parliament.
• The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure (Article 368 itself).
• Example: Article 279A (GST Council).
• The 3rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1954, was the first amendment requiring state ratification.

39. Official Language

Practice MCQs: Constitutional Amendments

Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure

1. With reference to the procedure for Amendment of the Constitution, consider the following statements: I. A private member of the House of the Parliament can introduce the Bill for Amendment of the Constitution only after the prior permission of the President. II. Article 368 of the Constitution of India provides for three types of amendments - simple majority, special majority and ratification of half of the States by a simple majority. III. For amendments that require ratification of half of the States by a simple majority, it is not necessary that all the State Legislatures must take action on the Bill. IV. The State Legislatures can pass a resolution requesting the Parliament to amend Article 368 in the same manner, as it could be done for the creation or abolition of Legislative Councils in the States. Which of the statement/statements given above is/are correct ?

   Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2024

   1. II and IV
   2. I, III and IV
   3. I and III
   4. Only III.
   Show answer

   Answer: D. Only III.

   The procedure for amending the Constitution is detailed in Article 368. Private members can introduce amendment bills without presidential permission. Amendments requiring ratification by states necessitate action from all state legislatures.

2. Which Article of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution?

   Asked in: GPSC Prelims CSP 1 2023

   1. Article 366
   2. Article 367
   3. Article 368
   4. Article 369
   Show answer

   Answer: C. Article 368

   Article 368 specifically deals with the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure for doing so. While the 'basic structure' doctrine is a judicial limitation on this power (established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case), Article 368 is the source of the Parliament's constituent power to amend the Constitution. The question asks which article empowers the amendment, which is Article 368.

3. Under which Article of Indian Constitution amendment process has been given ?

   Asked in: HPPSC HPAS Prelims 2018

   1. 361
   2. 364
   3. 368
   4. 370
   Show answer

   Answer: C. 368

   Part XX of the Constitution is titled "Amendment of the Constitution" and contains only one article, Article 368, which deals exclusively with the process of constitutional amendment.

4. In which article of the Indian Constitution is the amendment procedure mentioned?

   Asked in: HPPSC HPAS Prelims 2018

   1. 361
   2. 364
   3. 368
   4. 370
   Show answer

   Answer: C. 368

   Article 368 details the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure required for initiating and passing a constitutional amendment bill.

5. Which of the following statement is correct regarding Article 368 of the Constitution of India ? (i) Article 368 was amended by the 24th Constitution Amendment Act, 1971. (ii) Article 368 was amended by the 101st Constitution Amendment Act, 2016. Codes :

   Asked in: MPPSC CS Prelims 2020

   1. (i) is true and (ii) is false
   2. (i) is false and (ii) is true
   3. Both (i) and (ii) are true
   4. Both (i) and (ii) are false
   Show answer

   Answer: A. (i) is true and (ii) is false

   - Article 368 deals with the amendment of the Constitution. - The 24th Amendment confirmed Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. - The 101st Amendment introduced GST.

6. Article 368 of the Constitution of India deals with

   Asked in: UPSC NDA 1 2015

   1. the powers of the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution
   2. financial emergency
   3. To protect the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India
   4. To render compulsory military service
   Show answer

   Answer: A. the powers of the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution

   Article 368 of the Constitution of India exclusively deals with the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure for doing so. It outlines the special majority required for constitutional amendments.

7. Consider the following statements : 1. The Amendment procedure has been provided in Article 368 of the Constitution of India. 2. The consent of the States is mandatory for all Amendments to the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

   Asked in: UPSC NDA 1 2016

   1. 1 only
   2. 2 only
   3. Both 1 and 2
   4. Neither 1 nor 2
   Show answer

   Answer: A. 1 only

   - Article 368 outlines two methods of amendment: by a special majority of Parliament (2/3rd of members present and voting, supported by more than 50% of total membership) and by a special majority of Parliament plus ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. - Amendments requiring state ratification include changes related to the election of the President, extent of executive power of the Union and States, Supreme Court and High Courts, distribution of legislative powers, representation of States in Parliament, and Article 368 itself. - Many provisions can be amended by a special majority of Parliament alone.

8. Under the Provisions of the Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India, if a bill comes to Rajasthan Legislative Assembly after passing by Parliament for resolution to rectify, then (A) Resolution can be passed by Assembly. (B) Resolution can be rejected by Assembly. (C) No Amendment shall be proposed to such a resolution. Select the correct answer using code given below :

   Asked in: RPSC RAS Prelims 2018

   1. (A) only
   2. (B) and (C)
   3. (A) and (C)
   4. (A), (B) and (C)
   Show answer

   Answer: D. (A), (B) and (C)

   Article 368(2) of the Constitution requires ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States for certain types of constitutional amendment Bills after they are passed by Parliament. When such a Bill is sent to a State Legislative Assembly, the Assembly has the power to either pass a resolution ratifying the amendment or pass a resolution rejecting it.

Challenges to Constitutional Amendments: Legal avenues and outcomes

9. Match List-A with List-B and identify the correct answer from the codes given below : List-B List-A (Amendment chal‐ (Case) lenged)

   Asked in: RPSC RAS Prelims 2024

   1. Indira Gandhi V. Raj i. 42nd Amendment Narain ii. 52nd Amend‐
   2. Minerva Mills V. Union of India ment iii. 39th Amend‐
   3. Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachillu ment iv. 32nd Amend‐
   4. P. Sambamurthy V. State of A.P. ment A. A-iv, B-ii, C-iii, D-i B. A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv C. A-i, B-iii, C-iv, D-ii D. A-ii, B-iii, C-i, D-iv
   Show answer

   Answer: B. Minerva Mills V. Union of India ment iii. 39th Amend‐

   - Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: Tested the 39th Amendment, related to election disputes and judicial review. - Minerva Mills v. Union of India: Tested the 42nd Amendment, particularly regarding the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and led to the reinforcement of the Basic Structure doctrine. - Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu: Tested the 52nd Amendment (Anti-defection law). - P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P.: Tested the 32nd Amendment (special provisions for Andhra Pradesh).

Constitutional Amendments related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

10. With regards to Directive Principles of State Policy, what is the correct chronological order in which the following additions/changes were incorporated into the Constitution of India through amendments ? I. The adding of a second aspect relating to Article 38. II. The changing of the subject-matter of Article 45. III. The adding of Article 43B. IV. The adding of Article 48A.

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2024

    1. I, III, IV, II
    2. IV, I, II, III
    3. IV, II, I, III
    4. I, IV, II, III
    Show answer

    Answer: B. IV, I, II, III

    Let's find the years when these additions/changes were incorporated: IV. The adding of Article 48A (Protection of environment, forest and wild life) was done by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. I. The adding of a second aspect relating to Article 38 (State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life) was done by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978. Specifically, it added a second sentence to Article 38(1): "The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise inequality in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only among individuals but also among groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations." II. The changing of the subject-matter of Article 45 (Provision for early childhood care and education to all children until they complete the age of six years) was done by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002. The article was renumbered as Article 21A which makes free and compulsory education a Fundamental Right and Article 45 was substituted to provide for "provision for early childhood care and education to all children until they complete the age of six years." III. The adding of Article 43B (Promotion of co-operative societies) was done by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011.Therefore, the chronological order is: 1. Article 48A (1976) - IV 2. Article 38 (second aspect) (1978) - I 3. Article 45 (changed subject matter) (2002) - II 4. Article 43B (2011) - IIISo the order is IV, I, II, III.

11. Consider the following statements: I. The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971) inserted a new Article 31C, whose first provision was declared as invalid by the Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharati Case (1973). II. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills Case (1980) considered the extension of the scope of the second provision of Article 31C as invalid as well. III. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills Case (1980) has considered the importance of harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. IV. The present interpretation with respect to the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is the same reiteration of the first propounded by the Supreme Court in the Champakan Dorairajan case (1951). Which of the statement/statements given above is/are incorrect ?

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2024

    1. III and IV
    2. II, III and IV
    3. I, II and IV
    4. Only III
    Show answer

    Answer: C. I, II and IV

    Statement I is incorrect. The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971) inserted Article 31C, which had two provisions. The first provision stated that laws to give effect to certain Directive Principles (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) could not be deemed void on the ground of contravening Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) upheld the validity of the first provision but declared the second provision (which extended this protection to any law giving effect to any Directive Principle) as invalid. So, the first provision was declared valid, not invalid. Statement II is incorrect. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills Case (1980) considered the extension of the scope of the second provision of Article 31C as invalid, which was already declared in the Kesavananda Bharati Case. The Minerva Mills case primarily dealt with the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and the extent of parliamentary power to amend the Constitution. It reiterated that while the Directive Principles are important, they cannot override the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the core of Fundamental Rights. Statement III is correct. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills Case (1980) indeed emphasized the importance of harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It held that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary to each other and aim at establishing a welfare state. Neither can override the other. The court struck down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act, which gave precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. Statement IV is incorrect. The present interpretation with respect to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is not the same reiteration as that propounded in the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951). In Champakam Dorairajan, the Supreme Court initially adopted a rigid view, stating that Fundamental Rights would prevail over Directive Principles. However, subsequent judgments, particularly Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, have established a more harmonious and balanced approach, recognizing that both are essential for achieving the socio-economic goals of the Constitution.Therefore, statements I, II, and IV are incorrect.

12. Fundamental duties of Indian Citizens are provided by

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2001

    1. 41st amendment
    2. 42nd amendment
    3. 43rd amendment
    4. 44th amendment
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 42nd amendment

    The 42nd Amendment Act, passed during the Emergency, is also known as the 'Mini-Constitution' due to the large number of changes it introduced. The addition of Fundamental Duties was based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, constituted in 1976.

13. The term 'secular' was added to the preamble of the Constitution of India by the

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2013

    1. 40th Amendment
    2. 41st Amendment
    3. 42nd Amendment
    4. 43rd Amendment
    Show answer

    Answer: C. 42nd Amendment

    The term 'Secular' was incorporated into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act, explicitly stating India's commitment to secularism.

14. Read the following statements and choose the correct option : Statement I : Right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 Statement II : Right to property was made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution

    Asked in: CGPSC Prelims Exam 2020

    1. Statement I is true, but Statement II is false
    2. Statement I is false, but Statement II is true
    3. Statement I and Statement II both are true
    4. Statement I and Statement II both are false
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Statement I and Statement II both are true

    The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights (originally Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f)). Subsequently, it was re-established as a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution.

15. Which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. The Fundamental Duties are enlisted in Part IV-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India added the word 'Secular' to the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

    Asked in: UPSC Geoscientist 2022

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 1 only

    - Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Duties were added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee, and are listed in Part IV-A (Article 51A) of the Constitution. - Statement 2 is incorrect. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, added the words 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity' to the Preamble. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, primarily focused on changes related to emergency provisions and property rights.

16. Based on which of the following amendments to the Indian Constitution was the right to education made a fundamental right?

    Asked in: HPPSC HPAS Prelims 2014

    1. 84th
    2. 86th
    3. 91st
    4. 92nd
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 86th

    The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, inserted Article 21A into the Constitution of India, making the Right to Education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14 years. This amendment obliged the State to provide free and compulsory education for all children in this age group.

17. Which are correct statements regarding the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002?

    Asked in: KPSC KAS Prelims 2024

    1. It provides children a fundamental right to free and compulsory education.
    2. Article 21A of the Constitution has been introduced under this Act.
    3. It provides the substitution of Article 45A of the Constitution.
    4. In Article 51A, a new clause (j) has been added under this Act. A. A, B, C only B. A, B and D only C. A and B only D. A, C and D only
    Show answer

    Answer: C. It provides the substitution of Article 45A of the Constitution.

    The 86th Amendment Act, 2002 inserted Article 21A (Right to Education as a Fundamental Right), substituted Article 45 (Early childhood care and education as a Directive Principle), and added clause (k) to Article 51A (Duty of parents/guardians to provide education).

Federalism and Constitutional Amendments: Role of states and implications for the federal structure

18. Match List – I with List – II and select the correct answer from the codes given below the lists : List – I (Federa‐ List – II (Amending procedure) tion) (1) Amendments affecting the (I) U. S. A. units require ratification by half of their existing number (2) The federal government has no (II) India control over the Constitution of the units (III) (3) 50,000 citizens can request a Switzerland constitutional amendment (4) The legislature of 2/3rd of the (IV) Australia units can apply for amendment (5) The units have no power to initiate constitutional amendments Codes :

    Asked in: OPSC CS Prelims 2016

    1. I-1, II-5, III-3, IV-4
    2. I-5, II-2, III-1, IV-4
    3. I-3, II-4, III-1, IV-2
    4. I-4, II-5, III-3, IV-2
    Show answer

    Answer: D. I-4, II-5, III-3, IV-2

    - I (U.S.A.): One method of proposing amendments is by a convention called by Congress upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (List II option 4). - II (India): States in India do not have the power to initiate bills for constitutional amendments, although certain amendments require ratification by state legislatures (List II option 5). - III (Switzerland): The Swiss Constitution can be amended through popular initiatives, requiring a certain number of citizens' signatures (List II option 3, representing citizen initiative). - IV (Australia): The federal government has limited control over the independent constitutions of the Australian states (List II option 2).

19. A change in distribution of powers between the Centre and the States can be done by

    Asked in: WBCS Main Paper 5 2019

    1. the Union Government
    2. the States by themselves
    3. amending the Constitution
    4. None of the above
    Show answer

    Answer: C. amending the Constitution

    Amendments affecting the federal structure, including the distribution of powers, require not only a special majority in Parliament but also ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States (as per the proviso to Article 368(2)).

Historical Evolution of Amending Power: Major cases and their contribution to the doctrine of basic structure

20. Which one of the following cases prompted the Parliament to enact 24th Constitutional Amendment Act ?

    Asked in: MPSC CS Prelims 2014

    1. Golaknath case
    2. Minerva Mills case
    3. Kesavananda Bharati case
    4. Shankari Prasad case
    Show answer

    Answer: A. Golaknath case

    The Golaknath case (1967) prompted the Parliament to enact the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.

21. Which of the following statements are correct in respect of the genesis of the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution'?

    Asked in: OPSC CS Prelims 2023

    1. 1 and 3
    2. 2 and 3
    3. 2 and 4
    4. 1 and 4
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 2 and 3

    This doctrine was first propounded by Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case In Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution In Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case Supreme Court ruled that Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not give an absolute power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution In the case of Waman Rao Vs Union of India Supreme Court set aside the basic structure doctrine

22. Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case (1951): The Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The Basic Structure doctrine was not propounded in this case. This statement is incorrect. 2. Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case (1965): The Supreme Court reiterated its stand from the Shankari Prasad case, upholding Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. It held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. This statement is correct. 3. Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions. It held that Fundamental Rights were not amenable to the amending procedure under Article 368. It stated that Article 368 merely lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power, and Parliament does not have absolute power to amend any part, particularly not the Fundamental Rights. This statement is correct. 4. Waman Rao Vs Union of India Case (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified and reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine. It held that the Basic Structure doctrine would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment). It did not set aside the doctrine. This statement is incorrect. 63. Consider the following and arrange these in chronological order: I. Golak Nath Case II. Keshawananda Bharti Case III. 24th Constitution Amendment Act IV. 42nd Constitution Amendment Act Select the correct answer from the codes given below.

    Asked in: UPPCS Prelims 2021

    1. I, III, II, IV
    2. I, II, III, IV
    3. III, I, II, IV
    4. III, I, IV, II
    Show answer

    Answer: A. I, III, II, IV

    The events occurred in the following order: Golak Nath Case (1967), 24th Constitution Amendment Act (1971), Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), and 42nd Constitution Amendment Act (1976).

23. Arrange the following chronologically: 1. 44th Amendment Act 2. Minerva Mills Case 3. Amendment to Preamble 4. Kesavananda Bharati Case Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    Asked in: UPSC CISF AC EXE 2020

    1. 4-3-1-2
    2. 4-3-2-1
    3. 3-4-1-2
    4. 2-4-3-1
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 4-3-1-2

    - Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine. - The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) added words 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity' to the Preamble. - The 44th Amendment Act (1978) reversed some changes made by the 42nd Amendment and removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. - Minerva Mills Case (1980) re-affirmed the Basic Structure doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment.

24. In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 was 'law' within the meaning of Article 13?

    Asked in: WBCS Main Paper 5 2019

    1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
    2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
    3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
    4. Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

    - Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any 'law' that abridges Fundamental Rights. - The Golaknath judgment interpreted 'law' in Article 13(2) to include Constitutional amendments passed under Article 368.

25. Match List-A with List-B and identify the correct answer from the codes given below : List-A (Case) A. Indira Gandhi V. i. 42nd Raj Narain Amendment B. Minerva Mills ii. 52nd V. Union of India Amendment C. Kihoto Hollohan iii. 39th V. Zachillu Amendment D. P. Sambamurthy iv. 32nd V. State of A.P. Amendment Codes : A B C D (1) i iii iv ii (2) ii iii i iv (3) iv ii iii i (4) iii i ii iv (5) Question not attempted

    Asked in: ras 2025 2025

    1. (1)
    2. (2)
    3. (3)
    4. (4)
    Show answer

    Answer: D. (4)

    This question requires matching significant Supreme Court cases with the constitutional amendments they are related to. - Indira Gandhi V. Raj Narain case is related to the 39th Amendment Act, which dealt with election disputes and parliamentary powers. - Minerva Mills V. Union of India case is crucial for establishing the basic structure doctrine and the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary amendments, often linked to the implications of the 42nd Amendment. - Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachillu case is related to the 52nd Amendment Act and the anti-defection provisions (Tenth Schedule). - P. Sambamurthy V. State of A.P. case is related to the 32nd Amendment Act, which dealt with regional councils in Andhra Pradesh.

26. In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court state that the Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including any fundamental rights and if the Constitution makers intended to exclude the fundamental right from the scope of amending power, they would have made a clear provision in that behalf? - Question not attempted

    Asked in: Sr. Teacher (Sec. Edu.) Comp. Exam 2024 group a 2024

    1. A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950)
    2. Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951)
    3. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963)
    4. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951)

    - Article 368 Empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution. - Fundamental Rights Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees certain basic rights to citizens. - Judicial Review The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and examining the validity of laws and amendments.

27. In which case it was laid down that the "amendment in the Constitution is exercise of legislative functions of the Parliament" ?

    Asked in: Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam 2012

    1. Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India
    2. Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
    3. Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
    4. Keshavanand Bharti Vs. State of Kerala
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab

    The Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab case asserted that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, touching upon the nature of the amendment power.

Initiation and Passage of Amendment Bills: Legislative procedure in Parliament

28. The legislative origins of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act can be traced back to which Constitutional Amendment Bill?

    Asked in: BPSC Prelims Exam 66th

    1. 61st Constitutional Amendment Bill
    2. 62nd Constitutional Amendment Bill
    3. 63rd Constitutional Amendment Bill
    4. 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill
    Show answer

    Answer: D. 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill

    The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which provided constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions, has its legislative origins in the 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced in 1989 by the Rajiv Gandhi government with the aim of strengthening Panchayati Raj and giving it constitutional recognition. Although the 64th Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, it failed to pass in the Rajya Sabha. The subsequent Narasimha Rao government later introduced revised bills that were passed as the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts in 1992.

29. Which one of the following statements about a Bill for Amendment of the Constitution of India is not correct?

    Asked in: UPSC CDS 1 2022

    1. It is governed by Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India.
    2. Joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India.
    3. The State Legislatures cannot initiate any Bill or proposal for amendment of the Constitution of India.
    4. The previous sanction of the President of India is not required for introducing any Bill in the Parliament for amendment of the Constitution of India.
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India.

    Joint sittings are not permissible for Constitutional Amendment Bills under Article 368.

30. Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down in Article 368. 1. A bill to this effect can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha first. 2. Such a bill must be introduced by a minister. 3. In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, a joint sitting of the two Houses is held for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. Which of the above statements are incorrect?

    Asked in: GPSC Prelims CSP 1 2024

    1. 1, 2
    2. 1, 3
    3. 2, 3
    4. 1, 2, 3
    Show answer

    Answer: D. 1, 2, 3

    Article 368 of the Constitution lays down the procedure for its amendment. Statement 1 is incorrect. A bill for the amendment of the Constitution can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha), not just the Lok Sabha. Statement 2 is incorrect. Such a bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member (a member of Parliament who is not a minister). Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 368 expressly states that a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament cannot be held for the purpose of deliberation and passage of a constitutional amendment bill. The bill must be passed separately by each House by a special majority. Since all three statements are incorrect, option D is the correct answer.

31. Which one of the following statements is not correct ? a. The Amendment bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior permission of the President. b. There is no time limit within which the States should give their consent to the Amendment bill.

    Asked in: MPSC CS Prelims 2016

    1. Only a
    2. Only b
    3. Both a and b
    4. None of the above
    Show answer

    Answer: D. None of the above

    Statement a is correct. An amendment bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament, either by a minister or a private member. It does not require prior permission of the President for its introduction. Statement b is correct. For amendment bills that require ratification by state legislatures (affecting federal features), the Constitution does not prescribe any time limit within which the states must give or withhold their consent.

32. Consider the following statements and choose the correct code:

    Asked in: MPSC CS Prelims 2020

    1. In India, a constitutional amendment bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior permission of the President.
    2. In U.S.A., every constitutional amendment must be ratified by at least two-thirds of the state legislature.
    3. In Switzerland, no alteration of the constitu‐ tion can be effected without resorting to a refer‐ endum.
    4. In Australia, the constitution can be altered only by an Act passed by an absolute majority in both houses.
    Show answer

    Answer: C. In Switzerland, no alteration of the constitu‐ tion can be effected without resorting to a refer‐ endum.

    Constitutional amendments in Switzerland are subject to a mandatory referendum. This requires a double majority: a majority of the votes cast nationally, and a majority of the votes cast in a majority of the cantons.

33. Consider the following statements: An Amendment to the Constitution of India can be initiated by the: 1. Lok Sabha 2. Rajya Sabha 3. State Legislatures 4. President of India Which of the above statements is/are correct?

    Asked in: UPPCS Prelims 2024 · UPPCS Prelims 1999

    1. 1, 2 and 3
    2. 1 and 2
    3. Only 1
    4. 2, 3 and 4
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 1 and 2

    Article 368 of the Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It states that an amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha). Statement 1 (Lok Sabha) is correct: A constitutional amendment bill can be introduced in the Lok Sabha. Statement 2 (Rajya Sabha) is correct: A constitutional amendment bill can also be introduced in the Rajya Sabha. Statement 3 (State Legislatures) is incorrect: State Legislatures cannot initiate a constitutional amendment. They are involved in the ratification process for certain types of amendments that affect the federal structure. Statement 4 (President of India) is incorrect: The President is part of the legislative process by giving assent to the bill after it is passed by Parliament, but the President does not initiate the amendment bill.

34. Consider the following statements: 1. The Parliament of India is the sole authority to amend the Constitution of India. 2. A Bill for the amendment of the Constitution can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. 3. The President of India must give his assent to a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above are correct?

    Asked in: UPSC CAPF 2010

    1. 1 and 2 only
    2. 1 and 3 only
    3. 2 and 3 only
    4. 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

    Constitutional amendment bills can originate in either House of Parliament and require mandatory assent from the President. While Parliament is the primary legislative body for amendments, federal amendments require state ratification, meaning Parliament is not the sole authority in the sense of excluding states entirely from the process for certain amendments. However, given the options, interpreting statement 1 as Parliament being the sole legislative authority is the most plausible way to arrive at a valid option.

35. With regard to a Constitution Amendment Bill, which one of the following statements is *not* correct ?

    Asked in: UPSC CAPF 2016

    1. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha can call a joint sitting of both the Houses to pass the Bill
    2. Each House needs to pass the Bill separately by a prescribed special majority
    3. The Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament
    4. The Bill can be sponsored by a Private Mem‐ ber
    Show answer

    Answer: A. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha can call a joint sitting of both the Houses to pass the Bill

    - Constitution Amendment Bills require separate passage by each House with a special majority. - Joint sittings are not permitted for Constitution Amendment Bills.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: Major judicial pronouncements and landmark judgments

36. What option does the government exercise and legislators have when they do not like a decision made by the Supreme Court ?

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2018

    1. Pass a law challenging the decision
    2. Pass a constitutional amendment that circumvents the decision
    3. Both are options, pass a constitutional amend‐ ment that circumvents the decision or pass a law challenging the decision
    4. No options are there before the legislators and executives
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Both are options, pass a constitutional amend‐ ment that circumvents the decision or pass a law challenging the decision

    The Indian Constitution balances the powers of the judiciary with those of the legislature and executive. While the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, Parliament can amend the Constitution to overcome judicial decisions, subject to the doctrine of basic structure. This allows for a dynamic interplay between different organs of the state.

37. What option does the government exercise and legislators have when they do not like a decision made by the Supreme Court ? (1) Pass a law challenging the decision (2) Pass a constitutional amendment that circumvents the decision (3) Both are options, pass a constitutional amendment that circumvents the decision or pass a law challenging the decision (4) No options are there before the legislators and executives

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2018

    1. (1) only
    2. (2) only
    3. (3) only
    4. (4) only
    Show answer

    Answer: B. (2) only

    - Judicial review allows courts to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws inconsistent with it. - Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution (Article 368). - A constitutional amendment can change the fundamental law upon which a Supreme Court decision is based. - A simple law cannot override a Supreme Court decision based on constitutional interpretation.

38. Consider the following statements: 1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Asked in: UPSC IAS 2019

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 2 only

    - Statement 1 is incorrect. The 39th Amendment Act, 1975, inserted Article 329A into the Constitution, which placed the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker beyond judicial review. However, this article was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975). The 44th Amendment did not introduce such a provision; rather, it repealed Article 329A. - Statement 2 is correct. The 99th Amendment Act, 2014, sought to replace the Collegium system for the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India, 2015), struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014, declaring them unconstitutional and violative of the independence of the judiciary, which is considered a basic structure of the Constitution.

39. In which of the following cases Supreme Court held that an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 is a ‘law’?

    Asked in: Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam 2014

    1. Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan
    2. Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India
    3. Kesvanand Bharti Vs. State of Kerala
    4. Goloknath Vs. State of Punjab
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India

    In this landmark case (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The Court ruled that amendments made under Article 368 were not 'laws' in the ordinary sense, subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13 (which defines 'law' as including constitutional amendments and states that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void). However, the ruling was that an amendment under 368 is a law. This interpretation was later revisited in subsequent cases.

Key Constitutional Amendments and their Impact: (e.g., 1st, 42nd, 44th, 73rd, 74th, 97th, 99th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 105th)

40. The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act resulted in the :

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2010

    1. Readjustment of Lok Sabha Constituencies
    2. Prohibition of Members of Parliament to hold offices of profit
    3. Increase in the number of languages in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution
    4. Limiting the size of the cabinet at the centre and state levels to 10 percent of the total strength of the respective lower houses
    Show answer

    Answer: D. Limiting the size of the cabinet at the centre and state levels to 10 percent of the total strength of the respective lower houses

    The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, aimed to reduce the size of the Council of Ministers to prevent instability and coalition governments from becoming unwieldy.

41. The Indian State that was given just the status of associate state in 1974 and got the status of a full state in 1975 by the Amendments of the Constitution is

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2011

    1. Mizoram
    2. Manipur
    3. Sikkim
    4. Tripura
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Sikkim

    Sikkim was granted associate state status in 1974 and full statehood in 1975 through constitutional amendments.

42. Which of the following Amendment(s) provide(s) for reservation in jobs and admissions ?

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2023

    1. 77th
    2. 82nd
    3. 81st
    4. All of the above
    Show answer

    Answer: D. All of the above

    - 77th Amendment Act, 1995: Introduced Article 16(4A) empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of SCs/STs if they are not adequately represented in the state services. This provides for reservation in jobs (specifically promotions). - 81st Amendment Act, 2000: Added Article 16(4B) which states that unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs shall be considered as a separate class of vacancies to be filled in any succeeding year and the ceiling of 50% reservation on the total number of vacancies of that year shall not apply to such backlog vacancies. This is also related to reservation in jobs. - 82nd Amendment Act, 2000: Added a proviso to Article 335 to permit relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. This facilitates the implementation of reservation in jobs (promotions).

43. Consider the following statements regarding GST: I. GST will bring more transparency to direct tax laws. II. GST was the 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament. III. GST is a destination-based tax. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2023

    1. I and II only
    2. II only
    3. II and III only
    4. I, II and III
    Show answer

    Answer: C. II and III only

    Let's evaluate each statement regarding GST (Goods and Services Tax): I. GST will bring more transparency to direct tax laws. This statement is incorrect. GST is an indirect tax. It aims to bring transparency and simplify the indirect tax structure, not direct tax laws (like income tax). II. GST was the 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament. This statement is correct. The Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill, 2014, was introduced in Parliament to pave the way for GST. It was later passed as the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. III. GST is a destination- based tax. This statement is correct. Under GST, the tax is levied at the point of consumption (destination) rather than at the point of origin. This principle implies that revenue accrues to the state where the goods or services are consumed. Therefore, statements II and III are correct.

44. Which amendment provides for an authoritative version of the Constitution in Hindi?

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 1998

    1. 56th amendment
    2. 58th amendment
    3. 60th amendment
    4. 61st amendment
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 58th amendment

    Article 394A provides for the publication of an authoritative text of the Constitution in Hindi and states that such text shall be deemed to be, for all purposes, the authoritative text of the Constitution.

45. The first amendment to the Constitution of India was made in-

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2001

    1. 1951
    2. 1954
    3. 1957
    4. 1960
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 1951

    This amendment introduced several changes, including modifications to the right to freedom of speech and expression, provisions related to land reforms (abolition of Zamindari), and validating laws placing reasonable restrictions on certain fundamental rights.

46. Through which Constitution Amendment Act, reservation of students belonging to SC/ST/ OBC in admission to private unaided educational institutions is provided?

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2015

    1. 92nd in 2003
    2. 93rd in 2005
    3. 94th in 2006
    4. 95th in 2009
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 93rd in 2005

    The key point is identifying the specific constitutional amendment that empowered the state to implement reservations for SC/ST/OBC in private unaided educational institutions.

47. When did the first amendment of the Indian Constitution take place?

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2020

    1. June 18, 1951
    2. June 18, 1952
    3. July 18, 1953
    4. July 18, 1954
    Show answer

    Answer: A. June 18, 1951

    The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, made several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions and added the Ninth Schedule to protect certain laws from judicial review.

Limitations on Amending Power: The 'Basic Structure Doctrine' (Genesis, evolution, and major cases like Kesavananda Bharati)

48. Consider the following statements about 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution: I. The doctrine of the 'Basic Structure' has been incorporated into the Constitution of India by an Act of Parliament. II. Presently, the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution of India under Article 368 without affecting the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. III. Parliament's limited power to amend the Constitution is also an element of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. IV. The Supreme Court in the 'Keshvananda Padma Prasad Case' (1992) has declared that the mandate to build a 'welfare state' is an element of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

    Asked in: APPSC Group 1 Prelims 2024

    1. I, II and III
    2. II, III and IV
    3. II and III
    4. II and IV
    Show answer

    Answer: C. II and III

    The 'Basic Structure' doctrine, established by the Supreme Court, limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This doctrine itself is part of the 'Basic Structure'.

49. The Objectives specified in the Preamble contain the basic structure of our Constitution. In this regard choose the correct answer :

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2018

    1. The idea of basic structure is explained in the Constitution passed on 26th Jan 1950.
    2. Basic structure means that which cannot be amended in exercise of the power under Article 368 of the Constitution.
    3. Parliament is the supreme authority on the basic structure of our Constitution.
    4. Courts have no jurisdiction on basic structure of Indian Constitution.
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Basic structure means that which cannot be amended in exercise of the power under Article 368 of the Constitution.

    The Basic Structure Doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (1973). The Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited and cannot be used to alter, amend, or repeal the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution. The Preamble, embodying core ideals like justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, sovereignty, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, is often considered to contain some elements of the basic structure, though the basic structure itself is a judicial concept that has evolved over time through various judgments.

50. Under Article 368, the Parliament has no power to repeal the Fundamental Rights because they are

    Asked in: APSC CCE Prelims Exam 2020

    1. integral part of basic structure of the Constitu‐ tion
    2. integral part of human rights
    3. enshrined under Part III
    4. All of the above
    Show answer

    Answer: A. integral part of basic structure of the Constitu‐ tion

    The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973), propounded the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', which limits the Parliament's amending power under Article 368. While Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure, which includes Fundamental Rights.

51. Which among the following statements about the power to change the basic structure of the Constitution of India is/are correct? 1. It falls outside the scope of the amending powers of the Parliament. 2. It can be exercised by the people through representatives in a Constituent Assembly. 3. It falls within the constituent powers of the Parliament. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

    Asked in: UPSC CDS 1 2019

    1. 1 and 3
    2. 1 and 2
    3. 1 only
    4. 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 1 and 2

    Statement 1 is correct. As per the Basic Structure Doctrine established by the Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973), Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to altering the basic structure. Thus, changing the basic structure falls outside the scope of the Parliament's regular amending powers. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that altering the basic structure does not fall within the constituent powers of the Parliament under Article 368. Parliament's constituent power is limited and cannot be used to destroy or alter the basic structure. Statement 2 is correct in a theoretical sense. The ultimate constituent power to frame or fundamentally alter a constitution (including its basic structure) is generally understood to reside with the sovereign people, which could potentially be exercised through representatives in a specially constituted body like a Constituent Assembly, distinct from the existing amending process under Article 368. While the current constitution does not provide this mechanism, it is the theoretical means by which such fundamental change might occur if the basic structure were ever to be revisited outside the scope of Article 368.

52. The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to 1. the power of judicial review 2. the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati 3. the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India Select the correct answer given below.

    Asked in: case (1973) · 4. the judgment in Golaknath case (1967) · UPSC CDS 2 2016

    1. 1, 2 and 3 only
    2. 1, 2, 3 and 4
    3. 1 and 3 only
    4. 2 and 4 only
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 1, 2 and 3 only

    - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn't explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like Minerva Mills case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The Kesavananda Bharati case modified the Golaknath ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).

53. Which among the following Supreme Court Judgements established the principle that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution of India was unamendable?

    Asked in: UPSC Geoscientist 2022

    1. Golaknath vs State of Punjab
    2. Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala
    3. Sankari Prasad vs Union of India
    4. Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

    - In this judgement, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. - This ruling overturned the previous judgement in Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended.

54. Which of the following statement(s) is(are) correct? 1. The Constitution amending power embodied in Article 368 is subject to the doctrine of 'Basic structure' propounded by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala. 2. For Constitution amendment prior permission of the President of India is required. 3. The Constitution amendment Bill should initiate in Lok Sabha.

    Asked in: GPSC Prelims CSP 1 2018

    1. Only 1
    2. Only 1 and 2
    3. Only 3
    4. Only 1 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: A. Only 1

    The basic structure doctrine is a judicial limitation on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Constitutional amendment bills can originate in either house and do not require Presidential assent for introduction.

55. Which of the following elements come under basic structure of the Indian Constitution as declared by the Supreme Court? 1. Federalism 2. Social Justice 3. Effective Access to justice 4. Freedom and Dignity of the individual

    Asked in: GPSC Prelims CSP 1 2021

    1. 1, 2, 3 and 4
    2. 2, 3 and 4 only
    3. 1, 2 and 3 only
    4. 1 only
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 1, 2, 3 and 4

    - The Basic Structure doctrine limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. - The list of basic features is not exhaustive and has been expanded by the Supreme Court over time.

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy in the context of amendments

56. Assertion (A): Under Article 368, the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution. Reason (R): The Parliament is the Supreme Legislative body elected by the people of India. Choose the correct answer using the code given below:

    Asked in: UPPCS Prelims 2015

    1. Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
    2. Both (A) and (R) are correct, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
    3. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
    4. (A) is false, but (R) is correct.
    Show answer

    Answer: D. (A) is false, but (R) is correct.

    - The Basic Structure Doctrine, evolved in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), limits the Parliament's power under Article 368. - Parliament is the highest law-making body at the Union level, comprising elected representatives of the people (Lok Sabha) and indirectly elected representatives (Rajya Sabha).

Role of the President in Constitutional Amendments: Assent to amendment bills

57. The President's power to veto a Bill for amendment of the Constitution has been taken away, by substituting the word, "shall give his consent" by which amendment?

    Asked in: RPSC RAS Prelims 2013

    1. Twenty third amendment
    2. Twenty fourth amendment
    3. Forty second amendment
    4. Forty fourth amendment
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Twenty fourth amendment

    - The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, amended Article 368 of the Constitution. - It explicitly stated that the President "shall give his assent" to a Bill for amendment of the Constitution passed by both Houses of Parliament. - Prior to this amendment, there was ambiguity regarding the President's power in this regard.

58. Consider the following statements: A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting. Which of the statements given above are correct?

    Asked in: UPSC IAS 2022

    1. 1 and 2 only
    2. 2 and 3 only
    3. 1 and 3 only
    4. 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: B. 2 and 3 only

    A Bill for the amendment of the Constitution does not require the prior recommendation of the President (Statement 1 is incorrect). Under Article 368, once a Constitution Amendment Bill is passed by Parliament, it is obligatory for the President to give assent (Statement 2 is correct, reinforced by the 24th Amendment Act). A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed separately by each House of Parliament by a special majority (absolute majority of the total membership and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting). There is no provision for a joint sitting to resolve a disagreement on a Constitution Amendment Bill (Statement 3 is correct).

59. On receipt of a Constitution Amendment Bill, having been passed by both Houses of the Parliament, the President

    Asked in: WBCS Main Paper 5 2019

    1. may give his assent.
    2. may withhold his assent.
    3. may return the Bill for reconsideration.
    4. shall give his assent.
    Show answer

    Answer: D. shall give his assent.

    Article 368(2) of the Constitution, as amended by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, makes it mandatory for the President to give his assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament.

60. Through which Constitutional Amendment Act, the President's assent has been made mandatory on the Constitutional Amendment Bill ? - Question not attempted

    Asked in: Sr. Teacher (Sec. Edu.) Comp. Exam 2024 group a 2024

    1. 24th
    2. 42nd
    3. 43rd
    4. 44th
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 24th

    - 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 This amendment was a response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Shankari Prasad case and affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and made presidential assent to constitutional amendment bills mandatory. - Article 368 This article deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure therefor.

Types of Amendments: By simple majority, special majority, and special majority with state ratification

61. Which of the following parts of the Constitution cannot be amended by a simple majority ?

    Asked in: CGPSC Prelims Exam 2012

    1. Creation of new State
    2. Process of the election of President
    3. Official language of the Union or States
    4. Provision of Quorum
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Process of the election of President

    Provisions related to the federal structure of the Constitution, including the election of the President, require both a special majority in Parliament and ratification by states.

62. Which is unmatched in the context of Constitutional Amendment Procedure? i. Extension of executive powers of Centre and State. ii. Supreme and High Court. iii. Election of President. iv. Qualification of President. v. Condition of the Office of the President. vi. Tenure of President. vii. Distribution of Legislative powers in Centre and State. viii. States representation in Parliament.

    Asked in: CGPSC Prelims Exam 2017

    1. i ii iii
    2. ii iii iv
    3. iii iv v
    4. iv v vi
    Show answer

    Answer: D. iv v vi

    Under Article 368, some provisions require amendment by a special majority of Parliament, while others require a special majority plus ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Provisions requiring state ratification are generally those affecting the federal structure. Let's classify the given items by their amendment procedure: - Items requiring State Ratification: i (Extension of executive powers), ii (Supreme and High Court), iii (Election of President), vii (Distribution of Legislative powers), viii (States representation in Parliament). - Items requiring Special Majority only: iv (Qualification of President), v (Condition of the Office of the President), vi (Tenure of President).Now let's examine the options: A) i ii iii: All require State Ratification. This is a "matched" set procedurally. B) ii iii iv: ii and iii require State Ratification, iv requires Special Majority. This is an "unmatched" set. C) iii iv v: iii requires State Ratification, iv and v require Special Majority. This is an "unmatched" set. D) iv v vi: All require Special Majority. This is a "matched" set procedurally. E) vi vii viii: vi requires Special Majority, vii and viii require State Ratification. This is an "unmatched" set.Options B, C, and E all contain a mix of items requiring different amendment procedures, making them "unmatched" sets. However, option C groups together three items (Election, Qualification, Condition) all related to the office of the President, while simultaneously demonstrating the procedural difference (Election requires state ratification, Qualification/Condition require only special majority). This internal procedural variation within a conceptually related group (President's office) likely makes option C the intended "unmatched" set.

63. Which of the following statements are correct with reference to constitutional amendments? 1. Private members can't introduce Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament. 2. President can't refer back Constitutional Amendment Bill passed by Parliament for reconsideration. 3. Constitutional Amendment Bill requires special majority for its approval. 4. There can't be a Joint Session of Parliament for passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill.

    Asked in: GPSC Prelims CSP 1 2018

    1. Only 1 and 2
    2. Only 2, 3 and 4
    3. Only 2 and 3
    4. Only 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Only 2, 3 and 4

    - Constitutional amendments are governed by Article 368. - Amendments can be introduced by both ministers and private members. - President's assent is mandatory for a Constitutional Amendment Bill. - Special majority in each House is required, sometimes along with state ratification. - No joint sitting is permissible for Constitutional Amendment Bills.

64. Consider the following statements: (1) Constitution amendment bill can be introduced in any house of the parliament. (2) Centre and States have equal power to amend the constitution. (3) Amendment in the seventh schedule requires the ratification by the legislatures of not less than half of the states. (4) Basic structure of the constitution can also be amended. Choose the correct answer from the options given below :

    Asked in: HPPSC HPAS Prelims 2024

    1. (1) and (3) only
    2. (2) and (3) only
    3. (4) and (1) only
    4. (2) and (4) only
    Show answer

    Answer: A. (1) and (3) only

    Constitutional amendment bills can originate in either house. Federal provisions and the Seventh Schedule require state ratification. The basic structure is immune from amendment. States do not have equal amending power as the Parliament.

65. In which of the following provisions is ratification by not less than half of the states required for constitutional amendment? A. Any list in the Seventh Schedule B. Article 54, Article 55 and Article 73 C. Chapter VII D. Chapter I of Part IX Select the correct code:

    Asked in: HAS Prelims 2021

    1. A and B
    2. B and C
    3. C and D
    4. D and A
    Show answer

    Answer: A. A and B

    Article 368 of the Constitution provides for amendment. Certain amendments affecting the federal structure require ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by a resolution. These include amendments relating to: - The election of the President (Articles 54, 55). - The extent of the executive power of the Union and the States (Articles 73, 162). - The Union Judiciary and the High Courts in the States. - Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (including the lists in the Seventh Schedule). - Representation of States in Parliament. - The procedure for amendment of the Constitution itself (Article 368). Option A correctly identifies that any list in the Seventh Schedule falls under this category. Option B correctly identifies Articles 54, 55, and 73 as requiring state ratification. Options C (Chapter VII) and D (Chapter I of Part IX) do not represent specific, complete chapters universally listed as requiring state ratification as a whole; amendments to specific articles within them might, but the entire chapter is not listed as such under Article 368.

66. Which of the following provisions require(s) ratification from not less than one-half of the states for an amendment to the Constitution? A. Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule B. Article 54, Article 55 and Article 73 C. Chapter VII D. Chapter I of part IX Choose the right code :

    Asked in: HAS Prelims 2021

    1. A and B
    2. B and C
    3. C and D
    4. D and A
    Show answer

    Answer: A. A and B

    The provisions requiring state ratification include amendments relating to: - The election of the President (Articles 54, 55). - The extent of the executive power of the Union (Article 73) or the States (Article 162). - The Union Judiciary (Chapter IV of Part V) and the High Courts in the States (Chapter V of Part VI). - The distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (Chapter I of Part XI) or any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. - Representation of States in Parliament. - The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor (Article 368 itself).Looking at the options provided: A. Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule - This is explicitly listed among provisions requiring state ratification. B. Article 54, Article 55 and Article 73 - These articles relate to the election of the President and the extent of executive powers, which require state ratification. C. Chapter VII (Part V) - This chapter deals with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. Changes here do not typically require state ratification unless they impact the federal structure significantly, which is not generally the case. D. Chapter I of part IX - This relates to the general provisions regarding Panchayats. While the introduction of Panchayats (73rd Amendment) was a significant change, amendments to these specific provisions might not automatically trigger the state ratification requirement unless they affect the distribution of powers or state representation.Based on the standard provisions requiring ratification, A and B are clear examples.

67. Which of the following Constitution Amendments was the first Constitutional Amendment, which was rectified by the State Legislatures according to the requirements of the provision of the Article 368 (2) of the Constitution ?

    Asked in: MPPSC CS Prelims 2021

    1. First Constitutional Amendment, 1951
    2. Second Constitutional Amendment, 1952
    3. Third Constitutional Amendment, 1954
    4. Fourth Constitutional Amendment, 1954
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Third Constitutional Amendment, 1954

    Article 368(2) of the Constitution requires ratification by at least half of the state legislatures for amendments that affect certain provisions, including the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (Seventh Schedule). The Third Amendment Act, 1954, replaced entry 33 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule, thereby requiring state ratification.

68. Which of the following are matters on which a constitutional amendment is possible only with the ratification of the legislatures of not less than One-Half of the states? 1. Election of the president 2. Representation of states in Parliament 3. Any of the lists in the 7th Schedule 4. Abolition of the legislative council of a state Choose the correct answer from the codes given below :

    Asked in: TNPSC CS Prelims 2015

    1. 1, 2 and 3
    2. 1, 2 and 4
    3. 1, 3 and 4
    4. 2, 3 and 4
    Show answer

    Answer: A. 1, 2 and 3

    - Article 368 outlines procedures for constitutional amendments. - Some amendments require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. - Matters concerning the federal structure require state ratification. - Abolition/creation of state legislative councils is done by simple majority, not Article 368 amendment requiring state ratification.