Amendment by special majority and state ratification

Also called: Article 368(2) proviso · Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"; Class 11, Ch 9 "Constitution as a Living Document"

Meaning

Amendment by special majority and state ratification is the hardest way to amend the Constitution of India. Under the proviso to Article 368(2), Parliament must first pass the bill by a special majority in each House. After that, the legislatures of at least half the states must approve it by resolution, and only then does it go to the President [2]. This mode covers only provisions that affect the federal balance, which is the division of power between the Union and the states. It is the only stage where the states get a say in changing the Constitution.

Explanation

How it works: the steps in order

Step	What happens	Majority / time limit
1. Introduction	A minister or a private member introduces the bill in either House of Parliament. It can never start in a state legislature.	No prior sanction of the President is needed.
2. Passing in Parliament	Each House passes the bill separately.	Special majority in each House: a majority of the House's total membership, plus at least two-thirds of members present and voting [2][3].
3. No deadlock route	If the Houses disagree, the bill fails.	No joint sitting, because Art. 108 does not apply to amendment bills.
4. State ratification	At least half of the state legislatures pass resolutions approving the bill.	Simple majority in each state legislature. No time limit. This must happen before the bill goes to the President [2].
5. President's assent	The bill becomes an Act.	The President must give assent and cannot withhold it or return the bill (24th Amendment, 1971) [4].

• Special majority in practice. In the Lok Sabha, this majority is needed for three votes [3]:
• the motion to consider the bill
• each effective clause, meaning each clause that actually changes the Constitution

• the final passing motion

• Ratification is extra. States cannot change the bill's text. They can only approve it, by a simple majority (more votes for than against).

What needs ratification: the Art. 368(2) proviso list [2]

• Arts. 54–55: election of the President
• Art. 73 (Union) and Art. 162 (states): how far executive power reaches
• Art. 241: High Courts for Union territories
• Art. 279A: the GST Council, added by the 101st Amendment, 2016
• Chapter IV of Part V (Supreme Court) and Chapter V of Part VI (High Courts)
• Chapter I of Part XI: legislative relations between the Union and the states
• Any List of the Seventh Schedule: the Union, State and Concurrent Lists
• Representation of states in Parliament
• Art. 368 itself, so Parliament cannot quietly remove the ratification rule

The three modes, to show where this one fits

• (i) Simple majority, outside Art. 368. Parliament changes things by an ordinary law, and such a law is "not deemed" to be an amendment. Examples: Arts. 2–4 (new states and boundaries), Art. 11 (citizenship), Art. 169 (state Legislative Councils) and Art. 239A (UT legislatures).
• (ii) Special majority alone. This covers most of the Constitution, including Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles) and the Election Commission (Art. 324).
• (iii) Special majority plus ratification. This mode is only for the federal list above.

Limits of the ratification step

• States cannot start an amendment. Only Parliament can introduce one.
• Half the states are enough, and there is no deadline for them to act.
• Only the listed provisions need ratification. Other changes with a big federal impact, such as seat reservation [7] or delimitation (redrawing constituencies) [10], skip the states entirely.
• There is still a judicial check. Even a ratified amendment must respect the basic structure: Parliament cannot destroy the Constitution's core features, such as federalism or judicial review (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits. It is in the proviso to Art. 368(2), in Part XX, which has only this one Article [2].
• The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 rewrote Art. 368(1). Parliament now amends "in exercise of its constituent power" (the power to change the Constitution itself) by "addition, variation or repeal" [4].

• The same Act made the President's assent compulsory. It also added Arts. 13(4) and 368(3), so an amendment is not "law" under Art. 13 [4].

• The list has grown. The 101st Amendment, 2016 added Art. 279A (GST Council) to the proviso list [2].

• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): skipping ratification voids a provision.
• The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 added the Tenth Schedule (the anti-defection law). Para 7 of that Schedule barred all courts from hearing disqualification cases.
• The Supreme Court held that para 7 cut down the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which are on the ratification list. Para 7 had not been ratified by the states, so it was struck down.

• The rest of the Schedule survived as severable, meaning it could stand on its own. The Speaker's decision on disqualification is therefore open to judicial review, the courts' power to check whether an act is valid under the Constitution.

• Rajendra N. Shah (2021): the State List is protected.

• The 97th Amendment Act, 2011 added Art. 19(1)(c) (the right to form co-operatives), Art. 43B and Part IXB (Arts. 243ZH–243ZT).
• Part IXB dealt with "co-operative societies", which is a State List entry, but the states never ratified it. The Gujarat High Court struck it down.
• In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (decided 20 July 2021), the Supreme Court held that Part IXB is operative only for multi-state co-operative societies [5][6].

• What followed: states keep full power over co-operatives that work within one state. The Union's Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022 works within this narrower Part IXB [5].

• Cases where ratification was not needed.

• The 106th Amendment Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) reserved one-third of seats for women and added Arts. 330A, 332A and 334A [8].

• It passed the Lok Sabha 454–2 and the Rajya Sabha unanimously [9]. It needed no state ratification, because seat reservation is not on the proviso list [7].

• The special majority is a real hurdle. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 on delimitation was negated (defeated) in the Lok Sabha on 17 April 2026 [10]. It failed at the parliamentary stage, before ratification even came up.

Don't confuse with

• Amendment by special majority alone. This mode needs no state approval. It covers Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and the Election Commission (Art. 324). A change to a Seventh Schedule list, by contrast, needs ratification.
• Simple majority under Arts. 2–4, 11 and 169. These are ordinary laws that are "not deemed" to be amendments under Art. 368. State boundaries (Art. 3) need no ratification by half the states.
• A state resolution under Art. 169. Here one state's assembly asks Parliament to create or abolish its own Legislative Council. Ratification under Art. 368(2) is different: half of all states approve a constitutional amendment that Parliament has already passed.
• Ratification in the USA. The US needs three-fourths of the states, and its states can call for a convention. India needs only half the states, has no time limit, and its states cannot start an amendment.

Prelims Hooks

• Ratification list (proviso to Art. 368(2)): Arts. 54, 55, 73, 162, 241 and 279A (GST Council); the Supreme Court and High Courts; Ch. I of Part XI; the Seventh Schedule; states' representation in Parliament; and Art. 368 itself [2].
• Trap: these are NOT on the list. Fundamental Rights, the Election Commission (Art. 324), state boundaries (Art. 3), citizenship (Art. 11) and women's reservation (106th Amendment, 2023) [7][8].
• How states ratify: by resolution, with a simple majority in each legislature. At least half the states must do so. There is no time limit, and it must happen before presidential assent [2].
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): para 7 of the Tenth Schedule (52nd Amendment, 1985) was void for lack of ratification. The rest of the Schedule survived.
• Rajendra N. Shah (2021): Part IXB (97th Amendment, 2011) applies only to multi-state co-operatives, because the states never ratified it [5].
• Amendment bills: there is no joint sitting, the President cannot refuse assent (24th Amendment, 1971) [4], and a bill cannot start in a state legislature.

Mains Points

• The ratification step has real force.
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992) and Rajendra N. Shah (2021) show that courts will strike down a change if it touches a listed federal subject without the states' approval [5][6].

• The lesson from the 97th Amendment is that Union reforms in state fields last only if the states are consulted. This supports co-operative federalism, where the Union and states work together.

• A Centre-heavy design.

• States cannot initiate amendments, half the states are enough, and there is no time limit. NCERT calls this "favouring the centre against the States!".
• Seat reservation and delimitation need no ratification at all [7][10]. This matters more as delimitation debates grow.

• A possible reform: add delimitation and seat redistribution to the Art. 368(2) proviso list.

• Flexible but not too easy.

• There is no referendum or convention, so elected representatives decide alone. NCERT calls this parliamentary sovereignty.
• Even so, the special majority is hard to win, as the defeat of the 131st Amendment Bill, 2026 shows [10].
• Ratification and the basic structure doctrine add two more checks on the federal core.

Related concepts

• Amendment of the Constitution
• Constituent power
• Amendment by simple majority
• 97th Constitutional Amendment Act 2011

Read more

• The procedure under Article 368