Question

Consider the following statements regarding the criticism of the amendment procedure.

1. The amendment procedure is criticized for being too similar to the ordinary legislative process, except for the special majority requirement.

2. The Constitution provides detailed guidelines on the time frame for state legislatures to ratify amendments.

3. The power to amend the Constitution lies exclusively with the Parliament, with no role for a special body like a Constitutional Convention.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• A. 1 and 3 only
• B. 2 only
• C. 1 and 2 only
• D. 1, 2, and 3

Answer 1

Answer:

A. 1 and 3 only

Understanding the Indian Constitutional Amendment Procedure

• The procedure for amending the Constitution of India is laid down in Article 368 of Part XX of the Constitution.
• It outlines two main methods of amendment: by a special majority of Parliament, and by a special majority of Parliament plus ratification by half of the state legislatures.
• The Indian Constitution is neither too rigid nor too flexible, striking a balance between the two extremes.

Critique of the Amendment Procedure:

• Statement 1: Similarity to Ordinary Legislative Process
  • One of the primary criticisms is that the amendment procedure, especially for most provisions, is remarkably similar to the ordinary legislative process.
  • The key distinction is the requirement of a special majority (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) in Parliament, unlike the simple majority for ordinary laws.
  • This similarity often leads critics to argue that the Constitution can be amended with relative ease, especially if the ruling party has a strong majority in Parliament.
• Statement 2: Absence of Time Frame for State Ratification
  • The Constitution does not prescribe any time limit within which the state legislatures must ratify or reject an amendment bill referred to them.
  • This lack of a timeframe can lead to indefinite delays in the ratification process, potentially stalling crucial constitutional changes.
  • There is also no provision for holding a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to resolve a deadlock on an amendment bill, unlike ordinary legislation.
• Statement 3: Parliament's Exclusive Power in Initiation
  • The power to initiate a constitutional amendment bill rests exclusively with the Parliament.
  • A bill for amendment can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) and not in state legislatures.
  • There is no provision for a separate constituent body or a Constitutional Convention (like in the USA) to propose or ratify amendments in India.
  • Even for amendments requiring state ratification, the states only play a role in ratifying the amendment passed by Parliament; they cannot initiate it. This makes the process highly Parliament-centric.