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

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

Introduction

The framers of the Indian Constitution provided a balance between rigidity and flexibility in the amendment process (Article 368). While Parliament possesses wide amending power, it is not absolute and is subject to procedural safeguards and substantive judicial limitations.

 

Procedural Limitations (Article 368)

• Special Majority Requirement: Most provisions require passage by a majority of total membership and 2/3rd present and voting (e.g., Fundamental Rights amendments).
• Ratification by States: Amendments affecting federal provisions (e.g., representation of states, judiciary, executive power) require approval by at least half of the state legislatures.
• Bicameral Consent: Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must agree; no provision for joint sitting in case of disagreement.
• No Direct People’s Role: Unlike referendums in some countries, Indian citizens have no direct role in amendments.

Substantive Limitations (Judicial Doctrine)

• Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973): Parliament cannot amend features forming the "basic structure"—e.g., supremacy of Constitution, secularism, federalism, judicial review, parliamentary democracy.
• Judicial Review: Amendments themselves are subject to review by courts (Minerva Mills, 1980).
• Article 368’s Scope: Parliament cannot convert itself into a constituent assembly with unlimited power.
• Implicit Restrictions: Amendments cannot destroy the identity of the Constitution or violate fundamental rights disproportionately (e.g., Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, 1975).

Balanced Perspective

• Flexibility: Allows smooth adaptation to changing socio-economic needs (e.g., GST amendment, 101st CAA).
• Check on Abuse: Judicial limitations prevent authoritarian misuse (e.g., 42nd Amendment’s attempt to curb judiciary struck down).

 

 Conclusion

The amending power of Parliament is broad but not unfettered. Procedural safeguards ensure deliberation and federal participation, while substantive limitations imposed by the judiciary protect the core values of the Constitution. This balance preserves India’s constitutional identity while allowing democratic evolution.

 Note: This model Answer for Reference Purpose only