Question

Which of the following statements are correct regarding the amendment procedure under Article 368?

1. A constitutional amendment bill requires a special majority in each House of Parliament, defined as a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.

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

3. Amendments to federal provisions require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures by a simple majority.

• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 and 3
• C. 1 and 3
• D. All are correct

Answer 1

Answer:

D. All are correct

Article 368: Amendment Procedure of the Indian Constitution

• Special Majority Requirement: A bill to amend the Constitution must be passed by a special majority in each House of Parliament. This means:
  • A majority of the total membership of that House.
  • A majority of two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.
• No Joint Sitting: Unlike ordinary bills, there is no provision for a joint sitting of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to resolve any deadlock or disagreement over a constitutional amendment bill. The bill must be passed independently by both Houses with the required special majority.
• Ratification by States: For amendments affecting the federal provisions of the Constitution (e.g., powers of the judiciary, Supreme Court, High Courts, distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States, representation of States in Parliament, or the very existence of a State Legislature), an additional step is required. Such bills must be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the total number of states. This ratification requires a simple majority in the state legislatures.
• Significance: This multi-layered amendment process ensures that the fundamental structure of the Constitution is not altered lightly and requires broad consensus, both at the Union level and, for certain provisions, at the State level. It upholds the principles of federalism and parliamentary supremacy.
• Key Cases: Landmark Supreme Court judgments like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) have established the doctrine of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution, which Parliament cannot amend.