Sign Up

Have an account?

Sign In

Don't have account,

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Have an account?

Sorry, you do not have permission to ask a question, You must login to ask a question.

Need An Account,

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.

Search
Ask A Question
Home/upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions/Page 3

Mains Answer Writing Latest Questions

Shyamlal Sharma
  • 0
Shyamlal SharmaLearner
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

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?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Meena Mehara
    Meena Mehara Learner

    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 totRead more

    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.

    See less
Aditi Sharma
  • 0
Aditi SharmaBegginer
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Examine the arguments for and against the amendatory power’s incorporation into the Constitution’s basic framework critically. Which sides of this argument are making, and how have the courts addressed this matter?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Rajnish Singh
    Rajnish Singh Begginer

    The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides. ArgRead more

    The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution

    The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides.

    Arguments in Favor of Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:

    Preserving the Fundamental Character of the Constitution: Proponents argue that the ability to amend the Constitution is a fundamental feature that shapes the character and identity of the Constitution. Excluding it from the basic structure could undermine the Constitution’s integrity and stability.
    Preventing Arbitrary Amendments: Incorporating the amendatory power within the basic structure could prevent arbitrary or unchecked amendments that could undermine the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.
    Ensuring Meaningful Deliberation: Treating the amendatory power as part of the basic structure would require a higher threshold for constitutional changes, ensuring more meaningful deliberation and consensus-building.
    Safeguarding the Constituent Power: The argument is that the constituent power, which is the ultimate source of the Constitution’s legitimacy, should not be restricted or diminished by excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure.
    Arguments Against Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:

    Flexibility and Adaptability: Opponents argue that excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure would allow for the Constitution to be more flexible and adaptable to changing societal and political needs.
    Preventing Constitutional Ossification: Limiting the amendatory power could lead to the Constitution becoming ossified and unable to respond to evolving circumstances, undermining its relevance and legitimacy.
    Respecting the Will of the People: There is an argument that the people, through their elected representatives, should have the power to amend the Constitution, and that this power should not be unduly restricted.
    Judicial Overreach: Concerns have been raised that including the amendatory power within the basic structure could be seen as judicial overreach, as it would place significant limitations on the Parliament’s constitutional amending power.
    The Courts’ Approach to the Issue:

    The Supreme Court of India has had a complex and evolving approach to the issue of the amendatory power and the basic structure doctrine.

    In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court held that the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was subject to the basic structure doctrine, meaning that certain core features of the Constitution could not be amended.
    However, the Court did not explicitly include the amendatory power itself within the basic structure.
    In subsequent cases, such as the Minerva Mills case (1980) and the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), the Court has further elaborated on the relationship between the amendatory power and the basic structure.
    The Court has generally upheld the view that the basic structure doctrine applies to the exercise of the amendatory power, but it has not provided a definitive and comprehensive resolution to the debate.
    The debate continues, with legal scholars and constitutional experts offering different perspectives on the appropriate balance between the need for constitutional flexibility and the preservation of the Constitution’s fundamental character and values.

    See less
Aadhav Murthy
  • 0
Aadhav MurthyLearner
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Talk about the importance of civil society participation and public dialogue in the amending process. How much can the public and interest groups affect the discussion and decision-making surrounding a proposed constitutional amendment?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Abhishek Gupta
    Abhishek Gupta Learner

    Public discourse and civil society engagement play a crucial role in the amendment process of a constitution. They provide avenues for citizens and interest groups to voice their opinions, participate in debates, and influence the outcome of proposed constitutional amendments. However, the extent ofRead more

    Public discourse and civil society engagement play a crucial role in the amendment process of a constitution. They provide avenues for citizens and interest groups to voice their opinions, participate in debates, and influence the outcome of proposed constitutional amendments. However, the extent of influence can vary depending on various factors. Let’s discuss the role of public discourse and civil society engagement and the ways citizens and interest groups can impact the debate and outcome of constitutional amendments.

    Creating Awareness and Shaping Public Opinion:
    Public discourse and civil society engagement help create awareness about proposed constitutional amendments among the general public. Through various platforms such as media, public meetings, social media, and advocacy campaigns, citizens and interest groups can disseminate information, explain the implications of amendments, and shape public opinion. This awareness-raising process is crucial for generating interest, mobilizing support, and fostering informed debates.
    Advocacy and Lobbying:
    Interest groups and civil society organizations often engage in advocacy and lobbying to influence the debate and outcome of constitutional amendments. They present their perspectives, research, and recommendations to lawmakers, participate in parliamentary committee hearings, and provide expert opinions. By presenting evidence-based arguments and mobilizing support, these groups can influence the decision-making process and shape the content and scope of amendments.
    Petitions, Memoranda, and Public Consultations:
    Citizens and interest groups can actively participate in the amendment process by submitting petitions, memoranda, and representations to lawmakers, parliamentary committees, and constitutional review bodies. These documents highlight concerns, propose amendments, and provide suggestions for improving the proposed changes. Public consultations and hearings enable citizens and interest groups to directly engage with decision-makers, express their views, and influence the debate and drafting process.
    Litigation and Judicial Review:
    In some cases, citizens and interest groups may resort to litigation and seek judicial intervention to challenge the constitutionality of proposed amendments. By approaching the courts, they can bring their concerns to the attention of the judiciary and argue against amendments that they perceive as infringing upon fundamental rights or the basic structure of the constitution. Judicial review provides an avenue for independent scrutiny and can significantly impact the outcome of constitutional amendments.
    Grassroots Movements and Protests:
    Citizens and interest groups can organize grassroots movements, protests, and demonstrations to express their dissent or support for proposed constitutional amendments. These movements serve as a means to mobilize public opinion, raise awareness, and put pressure on lawmakers and the government to consider alternative perspectives or modifications to the proposed amendments. Such grassroots movements can influence the political environment and create a momentum for change.
    It’s important to note that the influence of citizens and interest groups in the amendment process depends on the openness of the political system, institutional mechanisms for public participation, and the responsiveness of policymakers. The impact can vary from case to case, and the final outcome is ultimately determined by the deliberations and decisions of elected representatives and the constitutional processes in place.

    In conclusion, public discourse and civil society engagement play a vital role in the amendment process by shaping public opinion, advocating for interests, providing expert opinions, and participating in deliberations. While citizens and interest groups can influence the debate and outcome of proposed constitutional amendments through various means, the degree of influence depends on multiple factors and the dynamics of the particular political and institutional context.

    See less
Arman Khan
  • 0
Arman KhanBegginer
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

What has been the actual application of the Constitution’s modifying provisions since 1950? Give a summary of the most significant constitutional changes that have been approved and talk about the sociopolitical settings and effects of each.

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Abhishek Gupta
    Abhishek Gupta Learner

    Since the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950, several amendments have been made to address various socio-political contexts and challenges. These amendments have played a crucial role in shaping and evolving the constitutional framework of India. Let's provide an overview of some major consRead more

    Since the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950, several amendments have been made to address various socio-political contexts and challenges. These amendments have played a crucial role in shaping and evolving the constitutional framework of India. Let’s provide an overview of some major constitutional amendments, along with their socio-political contexts and impacts.

    First Amendment Act, 1951:
    Context: This amendment was primarily introduced to address legal challenges to land reforms and to curtail freedom of speech and expression.
    Impact: It inserted reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression to protect public order, decency, and morality. It also validated land reform laws, ensuring their constitutionality.
    Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1971:
    Context: This amendment was introduced to counter the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Golaknath case, which held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights.
    Impact: It amended Article 13 and reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. It restored Parliament’s authority to amend fundamental rights.
    Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976:
    Context: This amendment was passed during the period of the Emergency (1975-1977) and aimed to consolidate power in the hands of the government.
    Impact: It made significant changes to the Constitution, including asserting the supremacy of Parliament, limiting judicial review, and diluting fundamental rights. It was widely criticized for its authoritarian nature.
    Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978:
    Context: This amendment was introduced to reverse some of the changes made by the Forty-Second Amendment Act and restore certain fundamental rights.
    Impact: It restored the power of judicial review and limited the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It reinforced fundamental rights and curtailed the powers of the government.
    Forty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1982:
    Context: This amendment was introduced to extend reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Parliament and state legislatures.
    Impact: It extended the reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) and state legislatures for another ten years, ensuring representation and social justice.
    Seventy-Third Amendment Act, 1992:
    Context: This amendment was passed to strengthen local self-government institutions and promote decentralization.
    Impact: It added the provisions for Panchayats (village councils) and conferred them with constitutional status. It aimed to empower local communities, enhance grassroots democracy, and promote rural development.
    Ninety-Ninth Amendment Act, 2014:
    Context: This amendment was introduced to facilitate the Land Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh.
    Impact: It enabled the exchange of territories and resolved border disputes between India and Bangladesh. It demonstrated the flexibility of the amendment process in addressing geopolitical challenges.
    These are just a few examples of significant constitutional amendments in India. Each amendment reflects the socio-political context of its time and has had varying impacts on governance, fundamental rights, social justice, and decentralization. The amendment process has allowed the Indian Constitution to adapt and respond to the evolving needs of the nation, ensuring its relevance and vitality.

    See less
Aadhav Murthy
  • 0
Aadhav MurthyLearner
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Consider the differences between the authority granted by Article 368 to change a Constitution and the authority to create new ones or to replace the current one in its entirety. What ramifications does this divide have for law and politics?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Rajnish Singh
    Rajnish Singh Begginer

    The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land: The Amending Power under Article 368: Article 368 of thRead more

    The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One

    The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land:

    The Amending Power under Article 368:
    Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
    This power allows for specific changes or additions to be made to the existing constitutional provisions.
    Amendments under Article 368 require a special majority in the Parliament (two-thirds of members present and voting, and an absolute majority of the total membership of each House).
    Certain provisions of the Constitution, like the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution, are considered unamendable under this power.
    The Power to Make New Constitutions or Completely Replace the Existing One:
    This power goes beyond the scope of Article 368 and allows for the creation of an entirely new Constitution or the complete replacement of the existing one.
    This power is typically exercised by a Constituent Assembly or a similar body with the specific mandate to draft a new Constitution.
    The process of making a new Constitution or replacing the existing one is not subject to the constraints of Article 368 and usually involves a more extensive and involved process.
    It may require the dissolution of the existing political order and the establishment of a new one.
    Legal and Political Implications of this Distinction:

    Scope of Changes: The amending power under Article 368 is limited to making specific changes or additions to the existing constitutional provisions. In contrast, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one allows for a more comprehensive and fundamental overhaul of the entire legal and political framework.
    Degree of Difficulty: Amending the Constitution under Article 368 is generally considered a more straightforward process, as it requires a special majority in the Parliament. Creating a new Constitution or replacing the existing one, on the other hand, typically involves a more complex and challenging process, often requiring the convening of a Constituent Assembly or a similar body.
    Preservation of Continuity: Amendments under Article 368 aim to preserve the overall continuity and stability of the existing constitutional framework, while the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may involve a more fundamental disruption of the political and legal order.
    Implications for Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has interpreted the basic structure of the Constitution as being unamendable under Article 368. However, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may potentially allow for a reconsideration of the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
    Political Significance: The power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one is typically associated with significant political events, such as the creation of a new nation or a major constitutional crisis. The exercise of this power can have far-reaching political implications, potentially leading to the reconfiguration of the power dynamics and the establishment of a new political order.
    In summary, the distinction between the amending power under Article 368 and the power to make new Constitutions or completely replace the existing one lies in the scope, degree of difficulty, preservation of continuity, implications for fundamental rights and the basic structure, and the political significance associated with each process. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal and political dynamics of constitutional change in India.

    See less
Aadhav Murthy
  • 0
Aadhav MurthyLearner
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Examine the development of the Supreme Court’s theory of the Constitution’s fundamental structure as it was presented in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case. What are the main elements that make up the fundamental framework, and how has this concept restricted ...

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Meena Mehara
    Meena Mehara Learner

    The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament's power to amend the ConstitutionRead more

    The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by asserting that certain essential features or principles of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments.

    Evolution of the Doctrine
    Background to Kesavananda Bharati Case:

    The case arose in the context of constitutional amendments made by the Parliament that sought to curtail judicial review and expand its own powers.
    The central issue was whether there are any inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament.
    Supreme Court’s Decision:

    The Supreme Court, through a historic 7-6 majority decision, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not unlimited.
    The Court asserted that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution that form its core foundation.
    Key Features of the Basic Structure:

    The exact components of the basic structure have not been exhaustively defined but typically include:
    Supremacy of the Constitution: Including the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws and organs of the state.
    Democratic and Republican Nature: Including free and fair elections, representative democracy, and republican form of government.
    Secularism: India’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution.
    Federalism: The distribution of powers between the Centre and the states.
    Separation of Powers: The division of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
    Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality.
    Impact on Parliament’s Amending Power:

    The Kesavananda Bharati case established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that violates or destroys its basic structure.
    Amendments that seek to alter the basic structure can be subjected to judicial review, and if found to be in conflict with the basic structure, they can be declared unconstitutional and void.
    Limitations Imposed on Parliament
    Judicial Review: The doctrine empowers the judiciary to review constitutional amendments, ensuring they do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.

    Consensus Building: Parliament must garner broad consensus and justify any amendments that might impact the basic structure, fostering a more deliberative and careful approach to constitutional changes.

    Stability and Continuity: The doctrine provides stability and continuity to the constitutional framework, preventing abrupt or radical changes that could undermine the foundational principles of the Republic.

    Criticisms and Interpretations
    Scope of Basic Structure: Critics argue that the doctrine’s scope remains vague, leading to potential judicial overreach or subjectivity in determining what constitutes the basic structure.

    Impact on Democratic Processes: Some argue that the doctrine limits the democratic will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

    Conclusion
    The doctrine of the basic structure, as evolved through the Kesavananda Bharati case, stands as a bulwark against arbitrary constitutional amendments that threaten the foundational principles of India’s democracy. It has shaped constitutional interpretation and limited the Parliament’s amending power by affirming that certain core features of the Constitution are sacrosanct and cannot be altered without judicial scrutiny and justification. This doctrine ensures the enduring resilience and integrity of India’s constitutional framework while balancing the need for flexibility and adaptability in response to evolving societal needs and challenges.

    See less
Anshika Singh
  • 0
Anshika SinghLearner
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Talk about the state legislatures’ and the parliament’s roles in the amending process. What is the necessary majority vote to approve a constitutional amendment, and how and why was it decided upon?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Mansi Gautam
    Mansi Gautam Learner

    In constitutional democracies like India, the amendment process involves both the Parliament (at the central level) and the state legislatures (at the state level). Let's discuss their roles and the majority thresholds required for passing constitutional amendments: Role of Parliament and State LegiRead more

    In constitutional democracies like India, the amendment process involves both the Parliament (at the central level) and the state legislatures (at the state level). Let’s discuss their roles and the majority thresholds required for passing constitutional amendments:

    Role of Parliament and State Legislatures
    Parliament (Central Level):

    Initiation of Amendments: Amendments to the Indian Constitution can be initiated in either house of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
    Passage in Parliament: The amendment bill must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each house (i.e., a simple majority of members present and voting, assuming quorum is met).
    Special Majority Requirement: Some amendments require a special majority, which means it must be supported by:
    A majority of the total membership of each house (simple majority), and
    At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
    State Legislatures:

    Ratification: After passing in Parliament, certain types of amendments (like those affecting federalism or states’ powers) require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Each state legislature considers the amendment and votes on it.
    Required Majority Thresholds
    Simple Majority: A simple majority means more than 50% of members present and voting. This is the standard requirement for most constitutional amendments initiated in Parliament. It ensures that amendments are supported by a majority of the legislators present to vote on the bill.

    Special Majority: A special majority is a higher threshold intended to ensure broader support for amendments that are considered more significant or affect fundamental aspects of the constitution. It requires:

    A majority of the total membership of each house (simple majority).
    At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
    Rationale for Choosing the Thresholds
    Balancing Flexibility and Stability: The simple majority threshold allows for flexibility in amending the constitution to adapt to changing circumstances or societal needs. It ensures that amendments can be passed with strong support from the legislators present at the time of voting.

    Protecting Core Principles: The special majority requirement (two-thirds majority of members present and voting) for certain amendments ensures that changes to fundamental aspects of the constitution are supported by a significant consensus across political parties and ideologies. This protects core principles and values enshrined in the constitution.

    Federal Considerations: Requiring ratification by state legislatures for certain amendments involving federalism ensures that states have a say in changes that affect their powers and autonomy. This mechanism promotes cooperative federalism and ensures that amendments do not undermine the federal structure.

    Historical Context: The thresholds were chosen based on the experiences of other democracies and India’s own historical context. They aim to strike a balance between democratic responsiveness and stability, avoiding frequent and arbitrary changes while allowing for necessary adaptations over time.

    In conclusion, the amendment process in India involves careful consideration of majority thresholds in Parliament and ratification by state legislatures. These thresholds reflect a deliberate effort to ensure that constitutional amendments are supported by sufficient consensus and consideration of both national and state-level perspectives. They are designed to uphold the integrity of the constitution while allowing for necessary updates and reforms in response to evolving challenges and aspirations.

    See less
Sanjay Nambiar
  • 0
Sanjay NambiarBegginer
Asked: July 15, 2024In:
  • 0

Describe the procedure for modifying the Indian Constitution according to Article 368. What are the distinct processes for changing the various sections of the Constitution, and why do these procedures differ?

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Gaurav Reddy
    Gaurav Reddy Begginer

    The process of amending the Constitution of India is outlined in Article 368. The Indian Constitution provides for a flexible amendment procedure, with varying degrees of difficulty for amending different parts of the Constitution. This is to ensure that the fundamental structure and core principlesRead more

    The process of amending the Constitution of India is outlined in Article 368. The Indian Constitution provides for a flexible amendment procedure, with varying degrees of difficulty for amending different parts of the Constitution. This is to ensure that the fundamental structure and core principles of the Constitution are protected, while also allowing for necessary changes to be made.

    There are two primary procedures for amending the Constitution:

    Simple Majority Amendment:
    This procedure applies to the majority of the provisions in the Constitution.
    An amendment can be initiated in either house of Parliament.
    The amendment bill must be passed by a simple majority (more than 50%) of the total membership of each house of Parliament and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each house present and voting.
    This amendment process is relatively straightforward and allows for necessary changes to the Constitution to be made.
    Special Majority Amendment:
    This procedure applies to specific parts of the Constitution, such as the provisions related to the federal structure of the government, the representation of states in Parliament, and the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
    An amendment bill must be passed by a special majority of the Parliament, which requires a majority of the total membership of each house and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each house present and voting.
    Additionally, such an amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states.
    This more stringent amendment procedure is in place to protect the basic structure and federal nature of the Indian Constitution.
    The rationale behind these varying amendment procedures is to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. The simple majority amendment process allows for necessary changes to the Constitution, while the special majority amendment process ensures that the fundamental features and core principles of the Constitution are not easily altered.

    The special majority amendment procedure is designed to make it more difficult to amend certain critical parts of the Constitution, such as those related to the federal structure and the powers of the judiciary. This is to prevent the concentration of power and to safeguard the core principles of the Constitution, which are crucial for the effective functioning of the Indian democratic system.

    By having these different amendment procedures, the Constitution aims to maintain a balance between the need for change and the need for stability, ensuring that the Constitution remains responsive to the evolving needs of the country while also preserving its core values and principles.

    See less
Prateek
  • 0
PrateekLearner
Asked: June 5, 2024In:
  • 0

Emphasize the transfer of authority granted by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts. Do you believe that thus far, the devolution process has not been entirely satisfactory? (Answer in 200 words)

upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions
  1. Animesh Singh
    Animesh Singh Learner

    The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts were landmark reforms aimed at strengthening local self-governance in India through the devolution of powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Key features of the devolution of powers under these amendments include thRead more

    The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts were landmark reforms aimed at strengthening local self-governance in India through the devolution of powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).

    Key features of the devolution of powers under these amendments include the establishment of a three-tier system of Panchayats, the mandatory holding of regular elections, the devolution of 29 subjects from the state list to Panchayats, and the recognition of municipalities as the third tier of governance with the devolution of 18 subjects.

    However, the process of devolution has been less than satisfactory in many parts of the country. Challenges include the lack of functional devolution, inadequate financial resources, capacity constraints of local bodies, and political interference by state governments.

    To address these challenges and strengthen local self-governance, a more concerted effort is needed by both the central and state governments to empower PRIs and ULBs through adequate devolution of powers, resources, and capacity-building support. This would enable local bodies to fulfill their responsibilities effectively and contribute to the overall development and democratic governance of the country.

    See less

Resources & Suggestions

Mains Answer Writing Latest Articles

On: February 24, 2025

Daily Answer Writing Practice Questions (24 February 2025)

The rise of the work-from-home culture has brought about several ethical issues in private organizations. In this context, do you believe it is ethical for an employee to engage in moonlighting? Discuss. (Answer in 150 words) घर से काम करने ...

On: February 22, 2025 Comments: 0

Indo-US Relation: Areas of Cooperation & Conflicts

Key Areas: Defense, technology, trade, energy, and regional cooperation. Key Areas of Cooperation 1. Defense and Security Transition from buyer-seller to co-production and technology sharing. India as a Major Defense Partner (MDP) and inclusion in STA-1. Access to advanced technologies, ...

On: February 22, 2025 Comments: 0

भारत-अमेरिका संबंध: सहयोग और संघर्ष के क्षेत्र

मुख्य विषय: भारत-अमेरिका संबंधों की मजबूती, विशेषकर रक्षा, प्रौद्योगिकी और क्षेत्रीय सहयोग में प्रगति। सहयोग के प्रमुख क्षेत्र 1. रक्षा एवं सुरक्षा सहयोग भारत और अमेरिका के बीच रक्षा संबंधों का विस्तार। प्रमुख रक्षा साझेदार (MDP) का दर्जा और STA-1 ...

Explore Our Blog