Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution.
Approach · directive: “examine”
What it asks · Explain the procedure under Article 368 that makes Parliament the amending body, then the substantive limits imposed by the basic structure doctrine, and assess the statement.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Examine: the procedure under Article 368 that vests the amending power in Parliament, with its 'few procedural hurdles'
- Examine: the substantive limits — the basic structure doctrine and its application
- Assess: whether the statement holds — flexible in procedure, bounded in substance
Open with · Unlike the US, where amendments need a supermajority of states, India lets Parliament itself amend most of the Constitution — flexible in procedure, but bounded in substance.
Cover
- Procedure: a Bill introduced only in Parliament (either House); special majority in each House separately; no joint sitting to break deadlock.
- Federal provisions (e.g., representation of States, Seventh Schedule, Supreme Court and High Courts) also need ratification by half the State legislatures.
- President must assent (made mandatory by the 24th Amendment); some changes (Articles 2–4, Fifth and Sixth Schedules) need only a simple majority.
- Substantive limit: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — Parliament may amend any part but cannot destroy the basic structure.
- Applications: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975); Minerva Mills (1980) held limited amending power itself part of the basic structure; NJAC (2015).
- I. R. Coelho (2007): laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 remain open to basic-structure review.
- Assessment: procedurally easy (over a hundred amendments), substantively guarded — criticised as judicial overreach, defended as a check on majoritarianism.
Close with · India's amending power is procedurally easy but substantively bounded — flexibility for change, the basic structure for continuity.
Add value (verified)
- The official text notes that the 42nd Amendment's insertion of clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 was struck down in Minerva Mills. The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 368, footnote ↗“This section has been declared invalid by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1980 SC 1789.”
- For federal provisions, Article 368(2) requires ratification by half the States. The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 368(2), proviso ↗“ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 338 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Unlike the United States, where amendments need ratification by three-fourths of the States, India lets Parliament itself amend most of the Constitution under Article 368. The procedure is flexible; the substance is bounded by judicial review.
Procedural limits
- Initiation only in Parliament: a Bill may be introduced in either House, by a Minister or a private member, without the President's prior recommendation; State legislatures cannot initiate.
- Special majority: a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting in each House separately; no joint sitting can resolve a deadlock.
- Ratification: changes to federal provisions — election of the President, the Union and State executive and judiciary, legislative relations, the Seventh Schedule, representation of States in Parliament, and Article 368 itself — need ratification by at least half the State legislatures.
- Assent: the President must assent (24th Amendment, 1971); some changes, such as creating new States (Articles 2–4) or altering the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, need only a simple majority and are not deemed amendments.
Substantive limits
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament may amend any provision but cannot alter the basic structure — supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, free and fair elections.
- Applied: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down the 39th Amendment's bar on election challenges; Minerva Mills (1980) held the limited amending power itself part of the basic structure and struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368; I. R. Coelho (2007) opened Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 to review; the NJAC amendment fell in 2015.
Assessment
- Procedurally easy: over a hundred amendments since 1950, most passed by Parliament alone, bear out the statement.
- Substantively guarded: the basic structure doctrine is the real check — criticised as unelected judges holding a veto over the amending power, defended as the shield against majoritarian rewriting of the Constitution.
India's amending power is easy to exercise but hard to abuse: procedural flexibility lets the Constitution grow, while the basic structure keeps its identity intact.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.