Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Examine the differences between India’s amendment processes and those of other powerful democracies like the US and the UK. What can be learned from these comparative assessments, and what are the points of similarity and difference?
Amendment Procedures in India, United States, and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis
India
Procedure: Amendments to the Indian Constitution are governed by Article 368.
Initiation: Amendments can be initiated in either House of Parliament and require a special majority (i.e., majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
Ratification: Some amendments require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Amendment Scope: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but subject to the basic structure doctrine.
United States
Procedure: Amendments are proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Ratification: Amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions.
Amendment Scope: Amendments can modify any part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
United Kingdom
Procedure: The UK does not have a codified constitution; amendments are made through Acts of Parliament.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament has supreme authority and can amend laws, including constitutional conventions.
Constitutional Conventions: While not legally binding, conventions limit parliamentary power in practice, such as the Salisbury Convention (House of Lords does not oppose government manifesto commitments).
Similarities and Differences
Initiation: Both India and the US require a supermajority to propose amendments, whereas the UK allows amendments through simple majority in Parliament.
Scope: India and the US have formal procedures to amend their written constitutions, whereas the UK’s constitution is flexible and evolves through Acts of Parliament and conventions.
Ratification: The US requires ratification by states, which is akin to India’s requirement for state legislature ratification in certain cases.
Amendment Flexibility: India’s basic structure doctrine restricts amendments that alter core principles, while the US and UK have more flexible amendment processes, albeit with different procedural requirements.
Insights
Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The US and UK systems allow for more flexible amendments, enabling adaptation to changing circumstances more readily. In contrast, India’s rigidity, especially with the basic structure doctrine, ensures stability but limits swift constitutional changes.
Democratic Processes: All three systems reflect the importance of democratic consensus in amending foundational laws, albeit through different procedural mechanisms.
Judicial Review: India’s judicial review power to strike down amendments conflicting with the basic structure highlights a robust check on parliamentary sovereignty, absent in the US and UK.
Historical Context: The US amendment process, designed to prevent hasty changes, contrasts with the UK’s reliance on conventions and evolving interpretations.
Conclusion
Comparative analysis of amendment procedures in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom reveals diverse approaches balancing constitutional stability with adaptability. India’s structured approach guards against rapid changes, while the US and UK systems allow for more responsive updates. Insights from these comparisons underscore the significance of balancing democratic principles with institutional safeguards to uphold constitutional integrity and adaptability in diverse democratic contexts.