Question

Consider the following statements regarding the criticism of the constitutional amendment procedure in India:

i. There is no provision for a special body like a Constitutional Convention for amending the Constitution.

ii. The Constitution prescribes a time frame for State Legislatures to ratify or reject an amendment bill.

iii. The amendment procedure is similar to the ordinary legislative process, except for the requirement of a special majority.

iv. There is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to resolve deadlocks over amendment bills.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• A. i, iii, and iv only
• B. i, ii, and iii only
• C. ii and iii only
• D. All of the above

Answer 1

Answer:

A. i, iii, and iv only

Constitutional Amendment Procedure in India

• Absence of a Constitutional Convention: Unlike some other countries, India does not have a provision for a special body, such as a Constitutional Convention, to specifically handle the process of amending the Constitution. Amendments are initiated and passed within the existing parliamentary framework.

• No Time Limit for State Ratification: The Constitution does not set a specific time frame within which State Legislatures must ratify or reject a bill that requires their approval for an amendment. This can potentially lead to delays or indefinite postponement of amendments requiring state consent.

• Distinction from Ordinary Legislation: While the initial stages of introducing an amendment bill might resemble ordinary legislation, the core difference lies in the required majority. Constitutional amendment bills necessitate a special majority (a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting), which is significantly higher than the simple majority usually required for ordinary laws.

• No Provision for Joint Sittings: In cases of a deadlock or disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament over a constitutional amendment bill, there is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve the issue. This is a crucial distinction, as joint sittings are permitted for ordinary bills (Article 108). The amendment process requires agreement from both Houses separately by a special majority.

• Article 368: The primary article governing the amendment of the Constitution is Article 368. It outlines the different procedures based on the nature of the amendment (e.g., those affecting federal provisions versus those that do not).

• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution, as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).