The Constitution of India can be amended under Article 368, using three different procedures depending on the provision being amended -- simple Parliamentary majority, special majority, or special majority plus ratification by at least half the States. Parliament's amending power is not unlimited: the Supreme Court's Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that no amendment can destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
The three amendment procedures under Article 368
Some provisions can be amended by Parliament's ordinary law-making process (a simple majority) -- for
example, creation of new States or changes to Union Territory administration, which are technically outside
Article 368's special procedure. Most provisions, including Fundamental Rights, require a “special
majority” -- a majority of the total membership of each House, and a two-thirds majority of members
present and voting. A smaller category of provisions affecting the federal structure (like the distribution
of legislative powers, or representation of States in Parliament) additionally requires ratification by the
legislatures of at least half the States before Presidential assent, reflecting the framers' intent to give
States a direct check over changes touching the federal bargain itself.
The Basic Structure doctrine -- Parliament's amending power is not unlimited
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that
while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it cannot use that
power to destroy or abrogate the Constitution's “basic structure” -- a set of foundational features
(identified case by case since, and including things like judicial review, federalism, secularism, separation
of powers, and free and fair elections) that even a validly passed amendment cannot alter. The doctrine
overruled the Court's earlier position in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held
Fundamental Rights entirely beyond Parliament's amending power -- Kesavananda struck a middle path, permitting
amendment of Fundamental Rights while still preserving the Constitution's essential identity.
Notable applications of the doctrine
The Basic Structure doctrine has been invoked to strike down constitutional amendments -- for example,
parts of the 39th Amendment (which sought to place the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial review) were
struck down in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), and the 99th Amendment creating the National
Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down in 2015 for undermining judicial independence, a feature
held to be part of the basic structure. More recent litigation, including challenges to the 103rd Amendment
introducing economically weaker section reservations, has tested the doctrine's outer limits, with the
Supreme Court in that instance ultimately upholding the amendment -- illustrating that the doctrine acts as
an outer boundary rather than a bar on all significant constitutional change.
Can Parliament amend the Constitution to remove judicial review entirely?
No -- judicial review has been held to be part of the Constitution's basic structure, so an amendment
seeking to remove it entirely would itself be struck down as unconstitutional under the Kesavananda Bharati
doctrine.
Does every constitutional amendment need State ratification?
No -- only amendments to a specific, limited category of provisions affecting the federal structure
require ratification by at least half the State legislatures; most amendments only need Parliament's special
majority.
Who decides what counts as part of the “basic structure”?
There is no single exhaustive list in the Constitution itself -- courts have identified basic structure
features case by case since 1973, including judicial review, federalism, secularism, separation of powers,
and free and fair elections, among others.
