NCERT
Every NCERT book that matters for UPSC — open a book, then a chapter. Learn each chapter's concepts, then how UPSC tests them — with diagrams, flowcharts and the past questions to attempt.
0% read
← Indian Constitution at Work — all chaptersConstitution as a Living Document
Start here: why this chapter matters
In simple wordsA good school rulebook must be firm enough that nobody changes it for a single match, yet open to change when the school grows. The Indian Constitution was designed to be both — and judges, politicians and citizens have kept it that way.
This chapter ties the book together: how the Constitution is amended (Article 368), why it has been amended so often, why the 42nd Amendment was so controversial, and how the basic structure doctrine limits Parliament while letting the Constitution grow.
- Builds on Chapter 2 (FRs vs DPSPs, property), Chapter 5 (special majority, Rajya Sabha), Chapter 6 (judicial review, Kesavananda) and Chapter 7 (federal provisions).
- Leads to Chapter 10 (the philosophy of the Constitution).
- UPSC: GS2 ‘amendments, significant provisions and basic structure’ — Article 368, ratification, the 42nd/44th, Ninth Schedule and basic structure are Prelims favourites and a recurring Mains theme.
| Word | What it means here |
|---|---|
| Amendment | Formal change in the text of the Constitution by addition, variation or repeal |
| Article 368 | Parliament's constituent power and the procedure for amendment |
| Flexible / rigid | Easy / difficult to amend |
| Special majority | Half the total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting |
| Ratification | Approval by the legislatures of at least half the States |
| Constituent power | Power to make or amend a constitution, as distinct from ordinary law-making |
| Basic structure | Core features that no amendment can destroy (judge-made doctrine) |
| Ninth Schedule | List of laws protected under Article 31B (Beyond NCERT) |
| Living document | A constitution that evolves through amendment, interpretation and practice |
| Letter vs spirit | The words of the text vs the purpose behind them |
| Parliamentary sovereignty | The idea that elected representatives have the final say |
Reading the France box and the side cartoon (page 197)
- The box traces France's constitutions: the post-revolution constitution of 1793 (first republic), the second republic in 1848, the third in 1875, the fourth in 1946 and the fifth in 1958. (Beyond NCERT: the First Republic was proclaimed in 1792, and the 1793 constitution was never applied.)
- A girl on roller skates observes that constitutional changes seem closely linked to political developments — the theme of the whole chapter.
At a glance — the six ideas to carry away
- India: same Constitution since 26 January 1950; USSR four constitutions (1918–1977), Russia a new one in 1993, France five republics.
- Three routes: simple majority (‘by law’, e.g. Arts 2–3); special majority (Art. 368); special majority + half the States.
- Special majority = half the total membership and two-thirds of those voting, in each House separately; no joint sitting; President cannot return the bill.
- 106 amendments by 26 January 2024 (NCERT): technical, interpretation-driven, consensus-based, controversial.
- 42nd (1976): Preamble, Seventh Schedule, 53 articles, Lok Sabha term 6 years, Fundamental Duties; mostly reversed by 43rd and 44th.
- Basic structure: Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980); Venkatachaliah review commission (2000) respected it.
1. Are constitutions static?
In simple wordsA family house can be rebuilt from scratch after every storm, or extended room by room. Many countries rebuilt; India has kept extending the same house.
The Soviet Union had four constitutions in 74 years (1918, 1924, 1936, 1977); after Communist rule ended in 1991 and the federation broke up, Russia adopted a new constitution in 1993. India's Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into force on 26 January 1950, and still frames government. Why? The framers were farsighted and the framework suits India — but no document can foresee everything. The answer: the Constitution accepts modification, and political practice and judicial rulings have interpreted it flexibly — making it a living document, not a closed rulebook.
Every constitution reflects the problems of its own time and must also guide the future. It expresses a society's aspirations, and it is a tool the society made for itself. Is it sacred and unchangeable, or an ordinary law? The framers struck a balance: above ordinary law and deserving respect, yet open to change as opinion shifts.
Reading the side cartoon, the Article 368 box and ‘Check your progress’ (pages 198–199)
- A boy notes that the US Constitution is more than 200 years old and has been amended only 27 times (still 27 — Beyond NCERT: the last was ratified in 1992).
- The Article 368 box: Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision, by the procedure in the article (UPSC 2024).
- Check your progress — four student claims: the Constitution is like any other law (no — it is higher law, harder to change); change it every ten to fifteen years (no — change when needed, not by a timetable); it is a philosophy that can never change (no — it allows amendment); any talk of change is undemocratic (no — the amendment procedure is itself democratic).
2. How to amend the Constitution
In simple wordsChanging a class rule about the seating plan needs the monitor's nod; changing the rule about exams needs most of the class to agree; changing a rule that affects every school in the district needs the other schools' agreement too.
The framers wanted the Constitution to be both flexible (open to change) and rigid (resistant to change): mistakes and temporary provisions should be easy to fix; the federal rights of States should not change without their consent; and core features should be protected. Hence different methods.
Reading the chart ‘How to amend the Constitution’ and the side cartoon (page 200)
- The chart branches into three: like an ordinary law, by simple majority, where some articles say so; special majority in both Houses separately under Article 368; and special majority plus the legislatures of half the States, also under Article 368. We redrew it with examples.
- A boy asks whether it is really the politics of a period that makes a constitution rigid or flexible — partly yes, as the 1970s and 2001–03 show.
Simple law: many articles say Parliament may act ‘by law’ — e.g. Article 2 (admit new States) and Article 3 (increase the area of a State) — so they change without Article 368. Article 368 provides two methods: special majority of both Houses; and special majority plus consent of half the State legislatures. All amendments are initiated only in Parliament; no outside body such as a constitutional commission is needed; there is no referendum; and the President cannot send an amendment bill back for reconsideration. Thus the procedure rests on the authority of elected representatives (parliamentary sovereignty).
Reading the Articles 2 and 3 box and the side cartoon (page 201)
- The box prints the words ‘Parliament may by law’ in Article 2 (admit new States) and Article 3 (increase the area of any State) — the signal that no Article 368 procedure is needed.
- A girl asks why States cannot propose amendments — ‘another example of favouring the centre’. True, they cannot initiate (UPSC 1999, 2013); they can only ratify, and they can press their demands politically.
3. Special majority and ratification by States
In simple wordsTo change the class constitution, it is not enough that most of the students who turned up agree. Enough of the whole class must agree — and for rules shared with other sections, those sections must agree too.
Special majority: an ordinary bill passes if a simple majority of those voting support it (NCERT: 124 of 247). An amendment needs supporters who are (1) at least half the total strength of the House and (2) at least two-thirds of those actually voting, in both Houses separately, with no joint session. So a ruling party with a thin majority can pass laws and budgets, but must win some opposition support to amend the Constitution — the principle is broad consensus.
Reading the ‘two principles’ box, the side cartoon and Ambedkar's portrait and quotation (page 203)
- Box: modern constitutions use special majorities (US two-thirds; South Africa and Russia three-fourths for some amendments) and people's participation (Switzerland — people can initiate; Russia and Italy among others).
- A boy groans that special majority means constant calculations — ‘is it politics or maths?’ Both: the maths forces political agreement.
- A pen portrait of Dr. Ambedkar with his words of 25 November 1949: if the dissatisfied cannot get even a two-thirds majority, their dissatisfaction cannot be taken as shared by the public. NCERT's note: behind the majority stands public opinion.
Ratification by States: for articles on the distribution of powers between the Union and States, or on representation, legislatures of half the States must pass the bill — respecting federalism. It stays practicable: only half the States, and only a simple majority in each. In short: amendment needs large-scale consensus and limited participation of the States.
⤵ An amendment under Article 368 (details Beyond NCERT marked *)
Bill introduced in either House of Parliamentby a minister or a private member*; no prior permission of the President needed*; never in a State legislature
Each House passes it by special majorityhalf of total membership + two-thirds of those voting; no joint sitting
Ordinary Article 368 mattergoes straight to the President
Federal provision (368(2) proviso)ratified by half the State legislatures by simple majority; no fixed time limit*
President must give assentcannot withhold or return it (made explicit by the 24th Amendment, 1971*)
Constitution amendedbut open to judicial review against the basic structure (Kesavananda, 1973)
Beyond NCERT — what needs State ratification
- The proviso to Article 368(2) lists: Arts 54 and 55 (President's election), 73 and 162 (extent of Union and State executive power), 241 and 279A; Chapter IV of Part V (Supreme Court), Chapter V of Part VI (High Courts), Chapter I of Part XI (legislative relations); any List in the Seventh Schedule; representation of States in Parliament; and Article 368 itself (UPSC 1995).
- Not on the list: Fundamental Rights, the Election Commission (Art. 324), the Governor's conditions of office (Art. 158), or abolishing a Legislative Council (Art. 169, ordinary law).
- Key-vs-text: UPSC 2025 asked which of (I) Union List, (II) extent of a State's executive power, (III) conditions of the Governor's office need ratification; the key we hold is (d) all three. By the text of Article 368(2), I and II need ratification but Article 158 is not listed — keep the key for exam purposes, but know the text points to (a).
Reading ‘Check your progress’ — the tick chart (pages 204–205)Which amendments need special majority and which also need State ratification? Citizenship clause — Parliament regulates citizenship by ordinary law (Art. 11); amending Arts 5–11 themselves would need special majority only. Freedom of religion — special majority only. Union List — special majority + ratification. State boundaries — neither: simple law under Arts 3–4. Election Commission — special majority only.
4. Why have there been so many amendments?
In simple wordsCounting how many times a recipe was edited tells you little. What matters is whether someone changed the salt or replaced the whole dish.
On 26 January 2024 the Constitution had completed 74 years and been amended 106 times (NCERT; the 106th, on women's reservation in legislatures, dates from 2023). NCERT's two graphs show amendments per decade and years taken for every ten amendments: the 1970s and 1980s saw the most; ten amendments came in about three years in 1974–76 (Congress dominance — 352 Lok Sabha seats) and again in 2001–03 (coalition politics and bitter rivalry). So amendments do not depend only on the size of the ruling majority; apart from the first decade, every decade has seen a steady stream.
Reading the two bar graphs and the side cartoons (pages 205–207)
- Graph 1 (amendments per decade, 1951–60 to 2011–18): lowest in the first decade, rising to peaks of a little over twenty in each of 1971–80 and 1981–90, then falling through the 1990s and 2000s. Graph 2 (years taken for every ten amendments, from the 10th to the 100th): short bars — about three years — for the batches that include 1974–76 and 2001–03, long ones of up to about eleven years at the start and end. We describe rather than redraw them.
- A girl asks: is something wrong with our society or Constitution? A boy answers: look at the changes, not the number.
- Technical/administrative: e.g. 15th raised High Court judges' retirement age from 60 to 62; 54th raised judges' salaries; extensions of SC/ST reserved seats every ten years (NCERT: six such amendments ‘so far’); Art. 74(1) amended to say the President shall act on ministerial advice — clarifying existing practice.
- Differing interpretations: when courts and the government read the Constitution differently — FRs vs DPSPs, the right to property, the scope of amending power — Parliament amended to assert its reading, especially in 1970–75.
- Political consensus (many after 1984): anti-defection (52nd, 91st), voting age 21→18 (61st), local bodies (73rd, 74th), reservations in jobs and admissions after 1992–93 (77th, 81st, 82nd).
- Controversial: the 38th, 39th and 42nd, made in the Emergency from June 1975. The 42nd changed the Preamble, the Seventh Schedule and 53 articles, tried to override Kesavananda, extended the Lok Sabha's term from five to six years, added Fundamental Duties and restricted judicial review — passed while many opposition MPs were in jail. After the Congress defeat in 1977, the 43rd and 44th undid most of these changes.
Reading the side cartoons and the Activity (pages 208–210)
- ‘If there is a written constitution, where is the scope for different interpretations?’ Words like ‘law’, ‘property’ or ‘amend’ admit more than one reading, and courts must decide.
- ‘So politicians do agree on some matters — and yet fight over the meaning of what they agreed on!’ — the consensus amendments.
- ‘So it is all about politics!’ Partly; but the basic-structure section shows law also limits politics.
- Activity: the 86th Amendment (2002) made education for children aged 6–14 a Fundamental Right (Art. 21A); the 101st Amendment (2016) introduced GST and the GST Council (both Beyond NCERT details) — consensus amendments of great importance.
Beyond NCERT — 42nd and 44th details UPSC tests
- Swaran Singh Committee (1976) recommended Fundamental Duties and considered giving Directive Principles precedence over Fundamental Rights (UPSC 1993). The 42nd extended Article 31C to protect laws for any Directive Principle — ‘primacy of DPSPs over FRs’ (UPSC 1979, 1981, 1986, 1989) — but Minerva Mills (1980) struck that extension down and restored balance. It also added DPSPs such as workers' participation in management (Art. 43A — UPSC 2017), equal justice and free legal aid (39A) and environment (48A), and moved education to the Concurrent List (UPSC 2006).
- 44th (1978): Lok Sabha term back to five years; ‘armed rebellion’ replaced ‘internal disturbance’ in Art. 352; Cabinet's written advice needed for an emergency; Arts 20 and 21 cannot be suspended; property ceased to be a Fundamental Right (now Art. 300A); the President may return ministerial advice once (Art. 74).
- SC/ST seat extensions: 8th (1960), 23rd (1969), 45th (1980), 62nd (1989), 79th (1999), 95th (2009) and 104th (2019) — seven, so NCERT's ‘six’ predates the 104th, which also ended nominated Anglo-Indian seats.
- The 1st Amendment (1951), under Nehru, added Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect land-reform laws — the first amendment to overcome judicial readings of Fundamental Rights (UPSC 1981, 2003, 2019, 2023). The Ninth Schedule, Tenth (anti-defection, 52nd), Eleventh (73rd) and Twelfth (74th) Schedules were all added by amendments (UPSC 2005).
5. Basic structure and evolution of the Constitution
In simple wordsYou may renovate a house as much as you like — repaint, add rooms, change the doors — but you cannot remove the foundation and still call it the same house. The courts decide what counts as the foundation.
The Kesavananda Bharati ruling (1973) shaped the Constitution's evolution: (1) it set limits — no amendment can violate the basic structure; (2) within that limit Parliament can amend any and all parts; (3) the judiciary decides whether an amendment violates the basic structure and what the basic structure is. The theory appears nowhere in the text; it emerged from interpretation — the judiciary practically amended the Constitution without a formal amendment. All institutions have accepted it, and it balances rigidity (some things cannot change) and flexibility (everything else can).
Other judicial contributions: reservations generally capped at 50%; the creamy layer excluded from OBC reservations; and interpretations of the right to education, the right to life and liberty and minority educational institutions — informal amendments through interpretation.
⤵ How a court tests a constitutional amendment (Beyond NCERT detail)
Amendment is passed under Article 368procedure correctly followed?
Challenged before the Supreme Court or a High Courtby a writ petition
Does it destroy or damage a basic feature?e.g. free elections, judicial review, judicial independence
No — valide.g. the 103rd Amendment (EWS quota) upheld in 2022
Yes — struck downe.g. Art. 329A(4) in 1975; Art. 368(4)–(5) in Minerva Mills (1980); the 99th Amendment (NJAC) in 2015
⤵ Laws in the Ninth Schedule after I.R. Coelho (Beyond NCERT)
Parliament places a law in the Ninth Scheduleby a constitutional amendment (Art. 31B, added by the 1st Amendment, 1951)
Added before 24 April 1973protected from challenge on Fundamental Rights grounds (Waman Rao, 1981)
Added on or after 24 April 1973can be tested against the basic structure, including Arts 14, 19, 21 (I.R. Coelho, 2007)
ResultNinth Schedule protection is no longer a complete shield (UPSC 2018)
Beyond NCERT — the cases
- Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965): Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights. Golaknath (1967), 11 judges: it cannot. The 24th Amendment (1971) restored the power and made Presidential assent obligatory.
- Kesavananda Bharati, decided 24 April 1973 by 13 judges (7:6): Parliament can amend any part but not the basic structure (UPSC 1981, 1985, 1994). Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) applied it to strike down part of the 39th Amendment. Minerva Mills (1980): limited amending power and the balance between FRs and DPSPs are themselves basic.
- Indra Sawhney (1992): creamy layer and the 50% norm; the 103rd Amendment's 10% EWS quota was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022).
- The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution was set up in 2000 under Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah and reported in 2002.
Reading the side cartoons and the ‘Review of the Constitution’ box (pages 211–212)
- ‘So it is the judiciary that has the final word — is this judicial activism?’ It is judicial review of amendments; activism is a broader debate.
- The box: in 2000 the Government appointed a commission to review the working of the Constitution under retired Chief Justice Venkatachaliah; opposition parties boycotted it, but it stayed within the basic structure.
- ‘It's all wrong — first consensus, now judges change the meaning!’ NCERT's answer comes in the next section: the courts protected the spirit of the Constitution.
Reading ‘Check your progress’ (page 213)After the basic-structure ruling Parliament has no amending power — wrong (it can amend all but the basic structure). The Supreme Court has given a clear list of basic features — wrong (identified case by case). The judiciary decides whether an amendment violates the basic structure — correct. Kesavananda set clear limits on amending power — correct in principle (a limit exists), though its content is filled in case by case.
6. The Constitution as a living document
In simple wordsA living thing grows and adapts but stays the same creature. A tree loses leaves every year and is still the same tree.
Like a living being, the Constitution responds to experience: dynamic, open to interpretation, responsive to new situations — the answer to the riddle of its durability, and why citizens respect it. The recurring constitutional question since 1950 has been the supremacy of Parliament: as the people's representative it should have the upper hand, but within the framework of the Constitution, because democracy is also about the rule of law, institutions and balance.
Contribution of the judiciary: Parliament claimed the power to make laws and amendments for the poor and needy; the judiciary insisted that even good intentions must work within constitutional procedures, since bypassing law invites arbitrary power. In Kesavananda the Court turned to the spirit rather than the letter — the basic structure is an ‘invention’ of the judiciary, grounded in the intent and social aspirations behind the text.
Maturity of political leadership: after the fierce 1967–73 controversy, attempts to have the Court reconsider Kesavananda failed; the 42nd asserted parliamentary supremacy; the Court reaffirmed its stand in Minerva Mills (1980). Since then parties, governments and Parliament have accepted the inviolable basic structure — even the review exercise stayed within it. The shared vision of the national movement — Nehru's ‘tryst with destiny’: dignity and freedom of the individual, social and economic equality, well-being of all, national unity — keeps the Constitution respected.
Reading the side cartoons (pages 214–215)
- ‘Is it a see-saw or a tug of war?’ — the balance between Parliament and the judiciary: at its best a see-saw that stays level; in the 1970s, a tug of war.
- ‘Let us not ignore instances of political immaturity’ — e.g. the Emergency amendments.
- ‘Without rights and elections the Constitution makes no sense; without well-being, rights and elections make no sense — is this the spirit?’ Yes: liberty, democracy and welfare together.
Reading Lakshminarayan Sahu's quotation (page 216)In the Constituent Assembly on 17 November 1949, Lakshminarayan Sahu warned that the draft's ideals had no manifest relation to India's spirit and that it would break down soon after coming into operation. The point: the Constitution's survival for over seven decades answers that fear.
Conclusion (NCERT): debates about the basic structure are healthy; democracy needs debate but also compromise and a common minimum ground. Organs of government will compete over importance and over what serves the people's welfare, but the final authority lies with the people.
Precise points
- An amendment bill can start in either House, never in a State legislature, and needs no prior Presidential recommendation (UPSC 1999, 2013; 2022 in Chapter 5).
- Ratification is by half the States, not all, and by simple majority in each (UPSC 2013).
- The President must assent to an amendment bill — there is no suspensive veto here.
- Changing State boundaries or creating a State is not an Article 368 amendment (Art. 4).
- The basic structure is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no exhaustive judicial list.
- Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review (UPSC 2018).
- The 44th, not the 42nd, removed the right to property from Fundamental Rights.
NCERT's in-text questions, cartoons and activities — short answers
‘Constitutional changes are closely linked to political developments.’ (page 197)
Yes — new constitutions follow revolutions (France, USSR, Russia); in India, amendments track politics (Emergency, coalition consensus). But law also limits politics through the basic structure.
The US Constitution, 200+ years old, amended only 27 times. (page 198)
Its amendment procedure is very rigid (two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of States), and US courts adapt it by interpretation. India's Constitution is longer and more detailed, so more changes need formal amendment.
Check your progress: four student claims about the Constitution. (page 199)
Not ‘any other law’ — it is higher law; no fixed ten- or fifteen-year revision; not unchangeable; changing it through the prescribed procedure is democratic, not anti-democratic.
Isn't it politics that makes a constitution rigid or flexible? (page 200)
The text sets the procedure, but politics decides how often it is used: a dominant party (1970s) or broad consensus (2001–03) makes amendment easier.
Why can't States propose amendments? (page 201)
Article 368 gives initiative only to Parliament; States protect their interests through ratification of federal provisions, Rajya Sabha representation and political pressure.
If 400 Lok Sabha members vote, how many must support an amendment? (page 202)
Two-thirds of 400 = 267 (rounded up), but at least half the total membership is also needed: NCERT's 545 gives 273; with today's 543 members, 272. So the bill needs the larger figure — 273 on NCERT's numbers, 272 today.
‘Is it politics or maths?’ (page 203)
The maths of special majority forces politics of consensus — a ruling party must win over others.
Check your progress: tick special majority / ratification. (pages 204–205)
Citizenship clause: Parliament legislates by ordinary law under Art. 11 (special majority only if Arts 5–11 themselves are amended); freedom of religion: special majority; Union List: special majority + ratification; State boundaries: simple law (Arts 3–4); Election Commission: special majority.
Why so many amendments — is something wrong with our society or Constitution? (page 205)
Neither: many are technical or consensus-based; a detailed Constitution needs updating; and a democratic society keeps changing. Look at the content, not the count.
Where is the scope for different interpretations in a written constitution? (page 208)
General words and competing values (rights vs social justice) need interpretation; courts and Parliament may read them differently.
Activity: amendments on RTE and GST. (page 210)
86th (2002): Art. 21A free and compulsory education for 6–14, Art. 45 early-childhood care, Art. 51A(k) parents' duty. 101st (2016): GST — concurrent taxing power (Art. 246A) and the GST Council (Art. 279A). Both expanded rights or reshaped fiscal federalism by consensus.
‘So the judiciary has the final word — is this judicial activism?’ (page 211)
It is judicial review of amendments, accepted by all institutions; it guards the core while leaving Parliament free elsewhere.
‘First consensus is needed, now judges change the whole meaning!’ (page 212)
Judges do not rewrite policy; they protect the core identity of the Constitution. Parliament remains free to amend everything else.
Check your progress: four statements on basic structure. (page 213)
(1) Wrong; (2) wrong — no exhaustive list; (3) correct; (4) correct — a limit exists, its contents developed case by case.
See-saw or tug of war? (page 214)
Ideally a see-saw — balance between parliamentary supremacy and judicial review; at times (1967–80) a tug of war, settled by Kesavananda and Minerva Mills.
Rights, elections and well-being — is this the spirit of the Constitution? (page 215)
Yes: political democracy (rights, elections) and social democracy (well-being) are interdependent — the framers' shared vision.
NCERT exercise — answer outlines
Questions 1, 2, 4–7 are objective-style; they are answered here and kept out of the self-check where several options can be argued.
Q1. A constitution needs amendment because: (a) circumstances change (b) a document becomes outdated (c) every generation should have its own constitution (d) it must reflect the existing government's philosophy.
(a) is correct. (b) only partly — not everything becomes outdated. (c) and (d) are wrong — a constitution should be durable and above any government.
Q2. True or false: (a) President cannot return an amendment bill (b) only elected representatives can amend (c) judiciary cannot initiate but can change the Constitution by interpretation (d) Parliament can amend any section.
(a) True. (b) True — Parliament and, for some provisions, State legislatures; no referendum. (c) True. (d) False — not the basic structure.
Q3. Who is involved in amendment, and how? Voters, President, State Legislatures, Parliament, Governors, Judiciary.
Parliament: initiates and passes by special majority. State Legislatures: ratify federal amendments (half the States). President: must assent. Judiciary: reviews validity against the basic structure. Voters: no direct role (no referendum), only indirectly through elections. Governors: no role.
Q4. Why was the 42nd Amendment controversial? (a) made during a controversial Emergency (b) without special majority (c) without State ratification (d) controversial provisions.
(a) and (d). (b) and (c) are wrong — it was passed by the required majorities and procedure; the objection was to its timing and content.
Q5. Which is NOT a reasonable explanation of the legislature–judiciary conflict over amendments?
(d) ‘Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect citizens' rights’ — it is a sweeping, undemocratic claim. (a), (b), (c) and (e) are reasonable explanations.
Q6. Correct the statements on basic structure: (a) Constitution specifies basic tenets (b) legislature can amend all but the basic structure (c) judiciary has defined what is and is not basic (d) first expressed in Kesavananda and developed later (e) increased judicial power and accepted by parties and government.
(a) Incorrect — the Constitution does not mention it; the courts derived it. (b) Correct. (c) Partly — courts identify features case by case; there is no complete definition. (d) Correct. (e) Correct.
Q7. From many amendments in 2000–2003 you would conclude:
(e) amendments were non-controversial and parties agreed on them. Not (b) — it was a coalition period; not (d) — parties differed bitterly on other things; (a) and (c) do not follow from the data.
Q8. Why require a special majority to amend?
To protect the Constitution from frequent or partisan change; to require broad consensus beyond the ruling party (Ambedkar's point about public opinion); to keep the document above ordinary law while still amendable; to protect minorities and the opposition; with State ratification, to protect federalism.
Q9. Amendments due to differing interpretations — examples.
1st (1951): Ninth Schedule after courts struck land reforms; 24th (1971) after Golaknath; 25th (1971): Art. 31C after the Bank Nationalisation ruling, and the 26th (1971) after the Privy Purses ruling (Beyond NCERT); 39th (1975) after the Allahabad High Court's election ruling; 42nd (1976) trying to override Kesavananda; 99th (2014) NJAC, against the collegium judgments — struck down in 2015.
Q10. ‘If elected representatives amend, judiciary should not judge amendments’ — agree? (100 words)
Disagree. Majorities can be temporary and may threaten rights, elections or judicial independence — as the Emergency amendments showed. Judicial review limited to the basic structure leaves Parliament free to amend everything else while protecting the core that makes democracy possible. It is not judicial supremacy: it is constitutional supremacy, accepted by all parties since Minerva Mills. The people's long-term will (the Constitution) checks the short-term will of a majority.
What to remember
Numbers
Constitution adopted / in force26 November 1949 / 26 January 1950
USSR constitutions1918, 1924, 1936, 1977
Russia's new constitution1993
US amendments (NCERT)27
Amendments by 26 January 2024 (NCERT)106
Special majority½ total membership + ⅔ of those voting
State ratificationhalf the States, simple majority
Busiest spells (NCERT)10 amendments in 1974–76 and in 2001–03
Congress Lok Sabha seats in early 1970s (NCERT)352
15th / 54th AmendmentsHC retirement 62 / judges' salaries
61st Amendmentvoting age 21 → 18
42nd AmendmentPreamble, Seventh Schedule, 53 articles; Lok Sabha 6 years
Kesavananda Bharati1973 (24 April; 13 judges, 7:6 — Beyond NCERT)
Minerva Mills1980
Review commission (Venkatachaliah)2000
Ninth Schedule (Beyond NCERT)1st Amendment, 1951
I.R. Coelho (Beyond NCERT)2007; cut-off 24 April 1973
One-liners
- Indian Constitution = partly flexible, partly rigid.
- Only Parliament initiates amendments; no referendum.
- Behind the special majority stands public opinion (Ambedkar).
- Count the changes, not the number of amendments.
- 38th, 39th, 42nd: controversial; 43rd, 44th: correction.
- Basic structure: everything amendable except the core; courts decide the core.
- Spirit over letter — Kesavananda.
- Final authority lies with the people.
Traps to avoid
- Amendment bills cannot start in State legislatures, and the President cannot initiate them.
- Ratification needs half the States, not all.
- The President must assent to an amendment bill.
- Creating States and changing boundaries need only a simple majority (Arts 3–4).
- Golaknath (1967) said FRs cannot be amended; Kesavananda (1973) said they can, but not the basic structure.
- The 42nd gave DPSPs primacy; Minerva Mills (1980) undid that.
- The 44th, not the 42nd, removed property from Fundamental Rights.
- Ninth Schedule laws are not fully immune — post-24 April 1973 additions are reviewable.
- NCERT's 545-member Lok Sabha is now 543 after the 104th Amendment.
How to strategise
Prelims — what UPSC asks
- Procedure: Article 368 ‘addition, variation, repeal’ (2024), initiation (1999, 2013), ratification lists (1995, 2025 — note the key-vs-text issue), schedules added by amendments (2005).
- 42nd and DPSP primacy: 1979, 1981, 1986, 1989, Art. 43A (2017), Swaran Singh (1993), RTE and education (2006).
- Basic structure and Ninth Schedule: Kesavananda (1981, 1985), meaning of basic structure (1994), Art. 31B and Ninth Schedule (1981, 2003, 2018, 2019), 1st Amendment vs courts (2023).
Mains — where it appears and how to answer
- GS2 — amending power: Supreme Court's check on Parliament's amending power (2013), limited vs absolute amending power under Article 368 (2019), procedural and substantive limits (2025).
- GS2 — consensus amendments: the 101st (GST) Amendment (2017).
- Answer frame: Article 368 design (flexible + rigid; consensus; federal ratification) → history (Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → 24th → Kesavananda → 42nd → Minerva Mills → Coelho) → basic structure as balance → criticism (judge-made, uncertain list) → conclusion: a living document anchored in constitutional supremacy.
Self-check
Tap an option. NCERT's own exercise questions come first; the rest test the figures and common confusions.
1. Under Article 368, Parliament may amend the Constitution by way of:
2. A constitutional amendment bill can be introduced in:
3. Which amendment needs ratification by half the States?
4. The Lok Sabha's term was extended from five to six years by the:
5. The basic structure doctrine was first laid down in:
6. Who decides whether an amendment violates the basic structure?
7. The Ninth Schedule was added by the:
8. The commission to review the working of the Constitution (2000) was chaired by:
UPSC questions from this chapter
Open any question to attempt it in the Question bank — your attempt is saved to your progress.