Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure

1. Why constitutions change: rigidity and flexibility

Read the detailed note →

• Other countries changed often. The USSR had four constitutions in 74 years (1918, 1924, 1936, 1977), and Russia adopted a new one in 1993. France has had five republics (1793, 1848, 1875, 1946, 1958). The USA has only 27 amendments in over 200 years.
• India has had one Constitution since 1950. It accepts change by amendment. Political practice and court rulings have also read it flexibly (Class 11, Constitution as a Living Document).
• Every constitution holds something of its own time and something lasting. This is the dual question: is it a sacred document, or an ordinary tool?
• A flexible constitution can be amended like an ordinary law, as in Britain. A rigid constitution needs a special, harder procedure. The US needs two-thirds of both Houses of Congress (or a convention called by two-thirds of the states), plus ratification by three-fourths of the states (US Art. V).
• Two principles used across the world: a special majority (two-thirds in the USA; three-fourths for some amendments in South Africa and Russia) and people's participation (citizens can start amendments in Switzerland; referendums in Russia and Italy).
• Rigidity and flexibility of the Constitution. India mixes the two:
• the framers expected some errors, which should be easy to fix;
• temporary provisions were meant to be changed by the new Parliament;

• federal matters need the states' consent, and core features are protected.

• Ambedkar (CAD, 25 November 1949): if critics "cannot obtain even" a two-thirds majority, their dissatisfaction "cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public". In other words, public opinion stands behind the special majority. The basic structure doctrine later added to this balance (§6).

2. Majorities in Parliament: the arithmetic

Read the detailed note →

Majority	Meaning	Used for
Simple majority	More than half of those present and voting (Class 11: 247 vote, so 124 needed)	Ordinary and money bills, most motions, election of presiding officers, Art. 4 and Art. 169 laws
Absolute majority	More than half of total membership (272 of 543 in the Lok Sabha)	Forming a government; first part of a special majority
Effective majority	More than half of total membership minus vacancies	Removing the Vice-President (Art. 67(b)), the Speaker or Deputy Speaker (Art. 94(c)), the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman (Art. 90(c)) and state presiding officers (Art. 179(c))
Special majority (Art. 368 type)	Majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting	Amendments, approving a national emergency (Art. 352(6), after the 44th Amendment), removing judges (Art. 124(4)) and the CEC (Art. 324(5))
Two-thirds of present and voting	—	Rajya Sabha resolutions under Arts. 249 and 312
Two-thirds of total membership	—	Impeaching the President (Art. 61)

• Worked example. NCERT says 545 members, so 273 are needed. Now there are 543 members, so 272 are needed, because the 104th Amendment ended Anglo-Indian nomination from 25 January 2020. If 400 members vote, the bill needs both 267 (two-thirds) and 272 (half of total membership), so 272. In the Rajya Sabha, 245 members means 123 (verify current strength).
• Why a special majority? A thin majority can pass laws and the budget alone. To amend the Constitution it must bring some opposition parties along. So amendments rest on broad agreement across parties ("Is it politics or maths?").

3. The procedure under Article 368

Read the detailed note →

• Amendment of the Constitution comes from Art. 368(1), as changed by the 24th Amendment: Parliament may "in exercise of its constituent power" (the power to make or change the Constitution itself, not ordinary law-making) amend any provision "by way of addition, variation or repeal". An amendment is not "law" under Art. 13 (Arts. 13(4), 368(3)).

• Steps in order: 1. A bill is introduced in either House of Parliament, never in a state legislature. A minister or a private member can introduce it, and the President's prior permission is not needed. 2. Each House passes it separately by special majority. There is no joint sitting. 3. Where needed, half the state legislatures ratify it by simple majority. There is no time limit. 4. The President must assent and cannot return the bill (24th Amendment, 1971). 5. There is no referendum and no outside body. Only elected representatives decide.

• Three modes:

• Amendment by simple majority, outside Art. 368, by ordinary law. Covers Arts. 2-4 (new states, boundaries), Art. 11 (citizenship), Art. 169 (legislative councils), Art. 239A, the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, MPs' salaries and privileges, quorum, and the number of SC judges.
• Special majority alone. Covers most provisions, including Parts III and IV and the Election Commission (Art. 324).

• Amendment by special majority and state ratification. Covers Arts. 54-55 (President's election), 73 and 162 (executive power), 241, 279A (GST Council), the Supreme Court and High Courts, Ch. I of Part XI, any Seventh Schedule List, states' representation in Parliament, and Art. 368 itself.

• Why ratification matters. Kihoto Hollohan (1992) struck down para 7 of the Tenth Schedule (which barred courts) because it was not ratified. The 97th Amendment Act, 2011 made forming cooperatives a right under Art. 19(1)(c) and added Art. 43B and Part IXB. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) held Part IXB void for state cooperatives because it touched the State List without ratification.

• Critique: states cannot start an amendment, and half the states is enough. NCERT's cartoon calls this "favouring the centre against the States!".

4. Why so many amendments: technical, interpretive and consensus changes

Read the detailed note →

• The count. There were 106 amendments in 74 years, up to 26 January 2024. The 106th (2023) is still the latest (verify current). Most came between 1970 and 1990. There were ten in 1974-76, when Congress had 352 Lok Sabha seats, and ten more in 2001-03, a time of coalitions. So the number does not depend on the size of the majority. Look at what changed, not how many times.
• Technical amendments (changes in law, with little real effect):
• 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963: raised the retirement age of High Court judges from 60 to 62.
• 54th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1986: raised the salaries of SC and HC judges and let Parliament revise them by ordinary law.
• SC/ST seat reservation is extended every ten years: 8th (1959), 23rd, 45th, 62nd, 79th, 95th and 104th (NCERT: six extensions; now seven). The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 extended SC/ST seats to 25 January 2030 and ended Anglo-Indian nomination.

• The Art. 74(1) "advice is binding" change was made by the 42nd Amendment (1976). The 44th then let the President return advice once.

• Differing interpretations. These came from clashes between the courts and Parliament in 1970-75 over rights vs directives, property, and the amending power (§§5-7).

• Political consensus (mainly after 1984):
• anti-defection: 52nd (1985) and 91st (2003, which removed the split exception and capped ministries at 15%);
• 61st (1988): voting age lowered from 21 to 18;
• 73rd and 74th (1992): local government;
• reservation: 77th (1995, Art. 16(4A)), 81st (2000, Art. 16(4B)), 82nd (2000, Art. 335 proviso);
• 86th (2002, Art. 21A) and 101st (2016, GST).

5. Parliament vs the judiciary I: from Shankari Prasad to Golaknath

Read the detailed note →

• 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, passed by the Provisional Parliament. It answered court rulings against zamindari abolition (Kameshwar Singh, Patna HC), on free speech (Romesh Thappar, 1950) and on caste quotas (Champakam Dorairajan, 1951). It:
• added Art. 15(4);
• added "reasonable" and new grounds to Art. 19(2): public order, friendly relations with foreign states, incitement;

• inserted Arts. 31A and 31B.

• Ninth Schedule (added by the 1st Amendment). Laws listed in it, mainly land reforms, are shielded by Art. 31B from fundamental-rights challenge. It began with 13 Acts and now has about 284 entries (verify current). It includes Tamil Nadu's 69% quota law (76th Amendment, 1994).

• Shankari Prasad case (1951) upheld the 1st Amendment. "Law" in Art. 13 means ordinary law, not an amendment, so Parliament can amend fundamental rights.
• Sajjan Singh case (1965) upheld the 17th Amendment (1964). Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar doubted this. Mudholkar asked whether changing "basic features" was amendment or rewriting, the seed of the basic structure idea.
• Golaknath case (27 February 1967). An 11-judge bench under CJI K. Subba Rao ruled 6:5. An amendment is "law" under Art. 13, so Parliament cannot take away fundamental rights. Art. 368 gives only the procedure.
• Doctrine of prospective overruling: a new ruling applies only to the future. Golaknath used it so the 1st, 4th and 17th Amendments and land reforms stayed valid.
• R.C. Cooper case (1970) struck down bank nationalisation over unfair compensation and held that rights are not separate compartments. Together with the privy purses case (Madhav Rao Scindia, 1970), it led to the 24th-26th Amendments (see congress-system-challenges).

6. Parliament vs the judiciary II: the 24th and 25th Amendments and Kesavananda Bharati

Read the detailed note →

• 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971: affirmed Parliament's power to amend any provision, including Part III. It added Arts. 13(4) and 368(3), so amendments are not "law", and made the President's assent obligatory.
• 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971: replaced "compensation" with "amount" in Art. 31(2). It added Art. 31C: laws for Art. 39(b)-(c) cannot be challenged under Arts. 14, 19 or 31, and a declaration to that effect is beyond court review.
• The 26th (1971) abolished privy purses. The 29th (1972) put Kerala's land laws in the Ninth Schedule; these were the laws challenged in Kesavananda.
• Kesavananda Bharati case (24 April 1973). It had 13 judges, the largest bench ever, and ruled 7:6 under CJI S.M. Sikri. It:
• overruled Golaknath and upheld the 24th Amendment;
• upheld Art. 31C but struck down its "no court review" clause;
• held that Parliament can amend any part, but not the basic structure;
• held that the right to property is not basic structure.

Justice H.R. Khanna's view was decisive.

• Basic structure doctrine. Parliament's amending power cannot destroy the Constitution's essential features. Examples: supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers. Full list in §8.
• What it did (Class 11): it set limits, allowed amendment of all other parts, and made the judiciary the final judge of what the basic structure is.
• Letter and spirit of the Constitution. The doctrine is nowhere in the text. The Court read the spirit (purpose and values) over the letter (bare words). So the doctrine is "itself an example of a living constitution".
• Aftermath: three senior judges were superseded and A.N. Ray became CJI (26 April 1973). A 13-judge review bench in November 1975 was dissolved after two days.

7. The Emergency amendments and the restoration

Read the detailed note →

• 38th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975: made the President's satisfaction in proclaiming emergencies and issuing ordinances, and the Governor's in issuing ordinances, non-justiciable (courts could not check it).
• 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975: added Art. 329A, which took disputes over the PM's and Speaker's election away from the courts (President and Vice-President disputes were handled under Art. 71). Clause (4) validated Indira Gandhi's election after the Allahabad HC verdict of 12 June 1975.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (7 November 1975) struck down Art. 329A(4). It held free and fair elections, democracy, rule of law and judicial review to be basic structure. This was the first time an amendment was struck down under the doctrine.
• 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 ("mini-Constitution", based on the Swaran Singh Committee):
• added "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" to the Preamble;
• added Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) and new directives (Arts. 39A, 43A, 48A); extended Art. 31C to all directives;
• added Art. 368(4)-(5), putting amendments beyond courts and making the amending power unlimited;
• extended Lok Sabha and assembly terms to six years; made advice binding (Art. 74(1)); added tribunals (Arts. 323A-B);
• curbed judicial review (Arts. 32A, 131A, 226A) and added Art. 31D.

It changed 53 articles while many opposition MPs were in jail. Its controversy lay in the Emergency context and its content, not in any missing special majority.

• 43rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1977: restored SC and HC powers and repealed Art. 31D.
• 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978:
• "armed rebellion" replaced "internal disturbance";
• an emergency needs the Cabinet's written advice and approval by special majority within one month;
• Arts. 20-21 cannot be suspended; five-year terms were restored;
• property became a legal right (Art. 300A); the President can return advice once;
• Art. 329A was omitted.

NCERT: "the constitutional balance was restored." Details are in emergency-1975 and emergency-provisions.

8. Consolidating the doctrine: Minerva Mills to I.R. Coelho

Read the detailed note →

• Minerva Mills case (1980, CJI Y.V. Chandrachud) struck down Art. 368(4)-(5), because a limited amending power is itself basic structure. It also struck down the extension of Art. 31C to all directives, because the balance of Parts III and IV is basic. Justice Bhagwati partly dissented.
• Waman Rao case (1981) set the cut-off of 24 April 1973 (the Kesavananda date). Amendments and Ninth Schedule entries before it are valid; later ones can be tested against the basic structure.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997): HC review (Arts. 226/227) and SC review (Art. 32) are basic. Kihoto Hollohan (1992): free and fair elections. S.R. Bommai (1994): secularism and federalism.
• I.R. Coelho case (11 January 2007). A 9-judge bench under CJI Y.K. Sabharwal held that Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 can be struck down if they damage the basic structure, including the essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21.

Elements of the basic structure

Case	Elements
Kesavananda (1973)	Supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form, secular and federal character, separation of powers, unity and integrity, sovereignty, welfare state
Indira Gandhi (1975)	Free and fair elections, rule of law, judicial review
Minerva Mills (1980)	Limited amending power, harmony of rights and directives
Sampath Kumar / L. Chandra Kumar	Judicial review
Bommai (1994)	Secularism, federalism
NJAC case (2015)	Independence of the judiciary
Not basic	Right to property (Kesavananda); 50% ceiling as a rigid rule (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022)

• There is no exhaustive list. The judiciary decides what counts.

9. The basic structure after 2000: the NJAC case and the critics

Read the detailed note →

• 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014. Together with the NJAC Act 2014, it added Arts. 124A-124C. The National Judicial Appointments Commission was to replace the collegium. Its members:
• the CJI (chair) and the next two senior SC judges;
• the Union Law Minister;
• two eminent persons chosen by the PM, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition.

Any two members could block an appointment. It was ratified by the states and in force from April 2015.

• NJAC case (SCAORA v. Union of India, 16 October 2015). A five-judge bench ruled 4:1, with Justice Chelameswar dissenting. It struck down the Amendment and the Act. Judicial primacy in appointments is part of judicial independence, so it is basic structure. The collegium was revived (see judiciary).
• Other tests:
• Janhit Abhiyan (7 November 2022, 3:2) upheld the 103rd Amendment's EWS quota.

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (5 May 2021) read the 102nd Amendment as giving the Centre sole power to identify SEBCs. The 105th Amendment (2021) restored the states' power, so a court reading was answered by an amendment.

• For the doctrine: it guards against majority abuse, as the Emergency showed. All institutions accept it, and Bangladesh adopted it (Anwar Hossain Chowdhury, 1989).

• Against: unelected judges override elected ones; the doctrine is undefined and keeps growing. NCERT's cartoon: "Judges change the whole meaning of the Constitution." Political criticism recurs, for example remarks by the then Vice-President in 2023 (verify).

10. Informal amendment, constitutional review and the living document

Read the detailed note →

• Informal amendment of the Constitution changes the working meaning without changing the text. Examples:
• the basic structure itself;
• the 50% reservation ceiling (M.R. Balaji, 1962; Indra Sawhney, 1992) and the creamy layer (Indra Sawhney);
• right to education (Unni Krishnan, 1993; later the 86th Amendment, 2002);
• Art. 21 (Maneka Gandhi, 1978; privacy in Puttaswamy, 2017);

• minority institutions (T.M.A. Pai, 2002).

• Class 7 adds the 2004 flag case (Union of India v. Naveen Jindal): flying the national flag is part of free expression (Art. 19(1)(a)). The judiciary cannot start an amendment, but it changes the Constitution by interpretation.

• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). Set up on 22 February 2000 under former CJI M.N. Venkatachaliah, it reported on 31 March 2002 with 249 recommendations (verify). Opposition parties boycotted it, but it stayed within the basic structure. Some ideas were later adopted, such as the 91st Amendment's 15% cap on ministers (verify).
• Constitution as a living document: like a living being, it responds to experience and adapts, which is why it lasts. Two supports:
• the judiciary's contribution: even pro-poor measures must stay within the law, because bypassing law invites arbitrary power;

• political maturity: after the 42nd Amendment and Minerva Mills, all parties accepted the basic structure.

• Lakshminarayan Sahu (CAD, 17 November 1949) predicted the Constitution would "break down soon". He was wrong. Final authority lies with the people.

• Class 7 view: Part IVA was added in 1976 and the 73rd Amendment in 1992. Amendments are debated, some go to state assemblies, the public is consulted (Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy 2014, MyGov), and popular movements can start changes.

11. Recent amendments and pending and failed bills

Read the detailed note →

Amendment	Change
99th (2014)	NJAC; struck down 2015
100th (2015)	India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (exchange of enclaves)
101st (2016)	GST: Arts. 246A, 269A, 279A; ratified by the states
102nd (2018)	Constitutional status for the NCBC (Arts. 338B, 342A)
103rd (2019)	10% EWS quota (Arts. 15(6), 16(6))
104th (2019)	SC/ST seats to 2030; Anglo-Indian nomination ended
105th (2021)	States' own SEBC lists (Art. 342A(3))
106th (2023)	Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam: one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and assemblies (Arts. 330A, 332A, 334A, 239AA). Starts after delimitation based on the next census; lasts 15 years

• 129th Amendment Bill, 2024 (One Nation One Election). Introduced on 17 December 2024 (introduction vote 269-198; verify). It adds Art. 82A and amends Arts. 83, 172 and 327. It follows the Ram Nath Kovind committee (March 2024). It is with a Joint Committee chaired by P.P. Chaudhary (verify current). The debate: federalism, and whether state ratification is needed.
• Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025. Introduced on 20 August 2025. A PM, CM or minister held in custody for 30 days in a row, on charges carrying five or more years in jail, would lose office (Arts. 75, 164, 239AA). It is with a Joint Committee chaired by Aparajita Sarangi (verify current). The debate: presumption of innocence and misuse of agencies, against clean politics.
• 131st Amendment Bill, 2026. Introduced on 16 April 2026. It would have allowed a Lok Sabha of up to 850 members, delimitation on a census chosen by Parliament, and women's reservation without waiting for the next census. It was negatived in the Lok Sabha on 17 April 2026 (per PRS; verify vote figures). A precedent is the 64th Amendment Bill (panchayats, 1989), which failed in the Rajya Sabha. The lesson: the special majority works as a consensus check.

---

Exam angles

Prelims — high-yield facts and traps

• Art. 368 steps: the bill starts in either House, not in a state legislature. A minister or private member can move it, without the President's prior permission. Each House passes it by special majority; there is no joint sitting. Where needed, half the states ratify by simple majority, with no time limit. The President must assent (24th Amendment). There is no referendum.
• Ratification needed: Arts. 54, 55, 73, 162, 241, 279A; the SC and HCs; Ch. I of Part XI; the Seventh Schedule; states' representation; Art. 368 itself. Ordinary law is enough: Arts. 2-4, 11, 169, 239A; the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. Election Commission: special majority only.
• Lok Sabha special majority: 272 of 543 (NCERT's 273 of 545 is from before the 104th Amendment). An effective majority is needed to remove the VP and the Speaker. Two-thirds of present and voting: Arts. 249, 312. Two-thirds of total membership: presidential impeachment.
• Case chain:
• Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965): Parliament can amend rights.
• Golaknath (1967; 11 judges, 6:5, prospective overruling): it cannot. The 24th Amendment (1971) restored the power.
• Kesavananda (1973; 13 judges, 7:6): it can amend anything except the basic structure.
• Indira Gandhi (1975): first amendment struck down under the doctrine.
• Minerva Mills (1980): limited amending power; balance of rights and directives.
• Waman Rao (1981): 24 April 1973 cut-off.
• Bommai (1994): secularism and federalism.
• Coelho (2007; 9 judges): Ninth Schedule laws open to review.

• NJAC case (2015; 4:1): judicial independence.

• Amendment matches:

• 1st: Ninth Schedule, Arts. 15(4), 31A, 31B. 15th: HC retirement age 62. 24th: Arts. 13(4), 368(3), assent obligatory. 25th: "amount", Art. 31C.
• 38th: emergencies and ordinances non-justiciable. 39th: Art. 329A. 42nd: Preamble, Part IVA, Art. 368(4)-(5). 44th: property to Art. 300A, "armed rebellion".

• 52nd: Tenth Schedule. 54th: judges' salaries. 61st: voting age 18. 97th: cooperatives. 99th: NJAC. 101st: GST. 102nd: NCBC. 103rd: EWS. 104th: SC/ST seats to 2030. 105th: states' SEBC lists. 106th: women's reservation.

• FALSE statements: the basic structure is listed in the Constitution; the SC has given an exhaustive list; after Kesavananda, Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights; property is basic structure; the 42nd Amendment lacked a special majority; states can start amendments; the President can return an amendment bill.

• NCRWC: 2000-02, M.N. Venkatachaliah, 249 recommendations, stayed within the basic structure.
• Bills: 129th (ONOE, Art. 82A); 130th (30-day custody rule; Arts. 75, 164, 239AA); 131st (Lok Sabha up to 850; negatived April 2026); 64th (1989; failed in the Rajya Sabha).

Mains — GS-II themes

1. Is India's Constitution rigid or flexible? Use the three modes of amendment, the number and kinds of amendments, and the basic structure limits.
2. Is the basic structure doctrine judicial overreach or a safeguard? Weigh the "unelected judges" and "undefined" objections against the Emergency lesson and its wide acceptance.
3. The Parliament-judiciary conflict of 1951-80 (property, rights vs directives, amending power) and how it settled in the Minerva Mills balance.
4. The limited role of the states: the ratification list, Kihoto and Rajendra Shah, and the federal side of GST, ONOE and delimitation.
5. Frequent amendments: change or instability? Use NCERT's technical, interpretive and consensus groups and the post-2014 amendments.
6. Is informal amendment by courts legitimate? Creamy layer, the 50% ceiling and Art. 21, and how the 86th and 105th Amendments later wrote such changes into the text.
7. Pending and failed bills (ONOE, the 30-day custody rule, delimitation-linked women's reservation) tested against the basic structure.
8. The NJAC case: judicial independence vs accountability and transparency in appointments.

Current-affairs hooks

• Joint Committee hearings and reports on the 129th and 130th Bills (verify current).
• The census and delimitation timeline and women's reservation after the 131st Bill's defeat; north-south seat concerns (verify current).
• SC judgments that test amendments; Kesavananda at 50 (2023).
• Political statements for or against the basic structure; calls for a new review commission (verify current).
• Demands needing constitutional change, such as Ladakh's Sixth Schedule demand, compared with J&K statehood, which needs only a law under Arts. 3-4 (verify current).