Question

Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for amending the Constitution:

1. 'Total membership', in the context of a special majority, refers to the effective strength of the House, excluding any existing vacancies.

2. Ratification of an amendment by a state legislature requires the bill to be passed by a simple majority of the members present and voting.

3. The 24th Amendment Act of 1971 made the President's assent to a constitutional amendment bill compulsory.

4. There is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve a deadlock over a constitutional amendment bill.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

• A. 1, 2 and 3 only
• B. 1 and 4 only
• C. 2, 3 and 4 only
• D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Answer 1

Answer:

C. 2, 3 and 4 only

Constitutional Amendment Procedure in India

• The procedure for amending the Indian Constitution is laid down in Article 368 of Part XX.

• It outlines various methods, reflecting a blend of rigidity and flexibility, for amending the fundamental law of the land.

Statement 1: 'Total membership' in special majority

• The statement asserts that 'total membership' refers to the effective strength of the House, excluding vacancies. This is incorrect.

• In the context of a special majority required for constitutional amendments (as per Article 368), 'total membership' of the House means the entire sanctioned strength of the House, irrespective of whether there are vacancies or members are absent.

• For example, if the Lok Sabha has a total strength of 543, 'total membership' is 543. A majority of this would be 272.

• 'Effective strength' refers to the total number of members minus existing vacancies. This concept is relevant for some other parliamentary procedures but not for the 'total membership' requirement under Article 368.

Statement 2: Ratification by State Legislatures

• The statement claims that ratification of an amendment by a state legislature requires a simple majority of members present and voting. This is correct.

• For certain types of constitutional amendments, particularly those affecting the federal structure (listed in the proviso to Article 368), the bill must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states.

• The Constitution does not prescribe a special majority for the state legislatures in this ratification process. They simply need to pass the bill by a simple majority of the members present and voting.

Statement 3: 24th Amendment Act of 1971 and Presidential Assent

• The statement says the 24th Amendment Act of 1971 made the President's assent to a constitutional amendment bill compulsory. This is correct.

• Before the 24th Amendment (1971), there was ambiguity regarding the President's power to withhold assent to a constitutional amendment bill.

• The 24th Amendment Act explicitly mandated that the President shall give his assent to a constitutional amendment bill after it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

• This amendment was enacted to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Golaknath case (1967), which had questioned Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.

Statement 4: Joint Sitting for Amendment Bills

• The statement asserts that there is no provision for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve a deadlock over a constitutional amendment bill. This is correct.

• Constitutional amendment bills must be passed by each House of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) separately by a special majority.

• If there is a disagreement or deadlock between the two Houses on an amendment bill, there is no provision for a joint sitting (as provided for ordinary bills under Article 108) to resolve it. This means if one House rejects the bill, it cannot be passed.

• This highlights the rigid nature of the amendment procedure for significant constitutional changes, ensuring thorough deliberation and consensus.