Amendment Procedure — Article 368 and the three routes.

Article 368 sets out how the Indian Constitution can be amended. The procedure looks simple in the text — pass a Bill by special majority in each House, get ratification by half the States for certain provisions, and the President shall give assent. In practice, every word of this procedure has been litigated. The 2013 Prelims tested whether amendments can be initiated only in the Lok Sabha (no — either House). The 2022 Prelims tested whether the President's assent is obligatory (yes, after the 24th Amendment). And the deepest gloss of all came from Kesavananda Bharati (1973): the procedure may be followed perfectly, but Parliament still cannot use it to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

The three routes — simple majority, special majority, special plus ratification

The Indian Constitution provides three routes for amendment, varying by the subject matter being amended.

Route 1 — Simple majority of each House. Some constitutional provisions can be changed by ordinary legislation, requiring only a simple majority of members present and voting in each House. These are not amendments under Article 368 in the technical sense; they are ordinary legislative changes that happen to alter the constitutional text. Examples: admission and establishment of new States (Articles 2 and 3), creation of Legislative Councils in States (Article 169), administration of Scheduled and Tribal Areas, and changes to the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Schedules.

Route 2 — Special majority of each House. The default route under Article 368. The Bill must be passed in each House by (a) a majority of the total membership of that House, AND (b) a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Both conditions must be met. Most amendments to the Constitution are passed under this route — including amendments to Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, the Preamble, and most structural provisions.

Route 3 — Special majority plus ratification by half the States. For amendments affecting the federal structure, the Article 368 procedure adds a third requirement: ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. The provisions requiring this additional ratification are listed in the proviso to Article 368(2) — election of the President (Articles 54 and 55), extent of executive power of the Union and the States (Articles 73 and 162), the Supreme Court and High Courts, distribution of legislative powers between Union and States, the Seventh Schedule lists, representation of States in Parliament, and the amendment procedure itself (Article 368).

The 2013 Prelims — initiation and ratification

The 2013 Prelims tested two specific traps about the amendment procedure.

Both traps are textually anchored. The Constitution does not require amendment Bills to begin in the Lok Sabha — Article 368(2) refers to introduction "in either House of Parliament." And the proviso to Article 368(2) requires ratification by the legislatures of "not less than one-half of the States" — half, not all. Aspirants who confuse the amendment procedure with the Money Bill procedure (Article 109, Lok Sabha exclusive) or who confuse "half" with "all" walk into both traps.

The 2022 Prelims — three statements on procedure

The 2022 Prelims tested three further procedural points.

The 2022 PYQ together with the 2013 PYQ covers the core procedural traps. No prior Presidential recommendation needed (unlike Money Bill). Either House can initiate (unlike Money Bill). Special majority in both Houses (no joint sitting available). Ratification by half the States for federal-structure changes (not all, not three-fourths). President's assent obligatory after the 24th Amendment.

The 24th Amendment — making Presidential assent obligatory

Before 1971, there was a question whether the President had discretion to withhold assent from a Constitution Amendment Bill. The text of Article 368 as originally enacted said only that the Bill, after being passed by the required majority, "shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill."

The textual ambiguity was resolved by the 24th Amendment of 1971. The amendment was enacted in response to Golak Nath (1967), in which the Supreme Court had held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The 24th Amendment tried to reverse this in three ways. First, it added clause (4) to Article 13 (mentioned earlier in the basic structure doctrine article). Second, it amended Article 368 to make explicit the constituent power. Third, it changed the assent provision to read: "and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill" — and crucially, it changed "upon such assent being given" to "the President shall give his assent."

The change of "may" to "shall" in the assent provision made Presidential assent obligatory. The President has no discretion to withhold assent from a Constitution Amendment Bill that has been passed by the required majority. This is different from the position with ordinary legislation, where Article 111 gives the President limited discretion (the President can return a Bill once for reconsideration; but if Parliament passes it again, assent must be given).

The 24th Amendment's changes to Article 368 were upheld in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) but with the rider that the amending power could not destroy the basic structure. The obligatory-assent provision survives.

The basic-structure limit — Kesavananda Bharati gloss

The Article 368 procedure can be followed perfectly — special majority in both Houses, ratification by half the States, presidential assent — and the resulting amendment can still be struck down. The reason is the basic structure doctrine, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

The 13-judge bench in Kesavananda held by 7:6 that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not extend to damaging or destroying the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine is judge-made — it is not in the text of Article 368 — but it has been the operative limit on the amending power since 1973.

What counts as the "basic structure" has been worked out case by case. The features that have been recognised include: the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers (in the Indian sense), federalism, secularism, the democratic and republican form of government, judicial review, the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles (per Minerva Mills 1980), the independence of the judiciary, and the limited amending power itself.

The 42nd Amendment of 1976 tried to remove this limit by adding clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368. Clause (4) said no amendment could be called in question in any court on any ground. Clause (5) said there was no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills (1980) struck down both clauses as themselves violating the basic structure. The basic-structure limit is therefore not just judge-made but judge-protected — Parliament cannot remove it by amendment.

What goes through which route — examples

Specific provisions are routed through specific procedures.

Simple majority (Route 1) — provisions that are formally constitutional but treated as ordinary legislation:

• Admission or establishment of new States (Articles 2 and 3) — examples: creation of Telangana 2014, Uttarakhand 2000, Jharkhand 2000, Chhattisgarh 2000.
• Creation or abolition of State Legislative Councils (Article 169).
• Citizenship matters (Articles 5 to 11).
• Salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament.
• Rules of procedure of Parliament.
• Some provisions on Scheduled and Tribal Areas.

Special majority (Route 2) — most amendments to the Constitution:

• Amendments to Fundamental Rights (Part III).
• Amendments to Directive Principles (Part IV).
• Amendments to the Preamble (only the 42nd Amendment has touched it).
• All amendments not covered by Routes 1 or 3.

Special majority plus State ratification (Route 3) — amendments affecting the federal structure:

• Election of the President (Articles 54 and 55).
• Extent of executive power of the Union and the States (Articles 73 and 162).
• Articles dealing with the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
• Distribution of legislative powers between Union and States.
• The Seventh Schedule (Union, State, Concurrent Lists).
• Representation of States in Parliament.
• The amendment procedure itself (Article 368).

The Prelims has sometimes tested whether a particular amendment falls under Route 2 or Route 3. The general rule: if the amendment touches the federal balance (Centre-State distribution, the Seventh Schedule, the higher judiciary, the President's election), it goes through Route 3. Otherwise, Route 2.

How often the Constitution has been amended

As of May 2026, the Indian Constitution has been amended over 100 times since 1950. The Constitution itself contains the original text plus successive amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, and so on. Each amendment has its own short title — "the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976" for example.

The pace of amendment has been uneven. The first three decades (1950–1979) saw frequent amendments, including all the major land-reform amendments and the Emergency-era 42nd Amendment. The 1980s and 1990s saw moderate activity, including landmark amendments on local self-government (73rd and 74th, 1992) and the GST framework (preliminary). The 2000s and 2010s have seen significant amendments on tax (101st on GST), education (86th), reservation (103rd), and J&K (the abrogation accompanying the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, though that was effected without using Article 368 in the conventional way).

Some amendments have been struck down in whole or in part. The 99th Amendment of 2014 (NJAC) was struck down in 2015 for violating the independence of the judiciary. Parts of the 42nd Amendment were struck down in Minerva Mills (1980) and other cases. The bulk of amendments have, however, survived constitutional challenge.

Aspirants do not need to memorise the full list — but should know specific landmark amendments that recur in the Prelims: the 1st (1951, land reform), 7th (1956, States reorganisation), 24th (1971, amending power), 25th (1971, Article 31C), 42nd (1976, mini-Constitution), 44th (1978, Janata reversal), 73rd-74th (1992, local government), 86th (2002, education), 99th (2014, NJAC, struck down), 101st (2016, GST), 103rd (2019, EWS reservation).

What students must hold

One historical detail worth holding for the exam. The constituent power exercised under Article 368 is not the same as ordinary legislative power. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised this distinction. When Parliament passes an ordinary law, it acts as a legislature exercising legislative power. When Parliament passes a constitutional amendment under Article 368, it acts as a constituent body exercising constituent power. The procedural requirements (special majority, ratification) reflect this elevated character. The 24th Amendment of 1971 made this distinction explicit by amending Article 368 itself, but the distinction had been recognised since Shankari Prasad (1951).

The procedural detail that aspirants miss most often is the distinction between membership and participation. The "majority of the total membership" requirement is calculated on the constitutional strength of each House — currently 543 for the Lok Sabha (so 272 votes minimum) and 245 for the Rajya Sabha (so 123 votes minimum) regardless of vacancies or absences. The "two-thirds of those present and voting" requirement is calculated on actual attendance. Both must be satisfied for an amendment to pass.

Six points carry the weight. One, three routes — simple majority (Articles 2-3, 169 etc.), special majority (default), special majority plus State ratification (federal-structure changes).

Two, the special majority means majority of total membership AND two-thirds of those present and voting. Both conditions.

Three, ratification is by at least half the States, not all (2013 PYQ).

Four, amendment Bill can begin in either House (no Money Bill rule). No prior Presidential recommendation needed (2022 PYQ statement 1 wrong). No joint sitting available — both Houses must pass independently (2022 PYQ statement 3 correct).

Five, after the 24th Amendment (1971), Presidential assent is obligatory — the President "shall give his assent" (2022 PYQ statement 2 correct).

Six, the basic-structure limit: even procedurally perfect amendments can be struck down if they damage the basic structure (Kesavananda 1973). For more on this, see basic structure doctrine. For specific amendments, see 42nd Amendment and 44th Amendment.