The document discusses the necessity and process of amending the Indian Constitution. It provides details on: 1) The amendment process outlined in Article 368, which allows amendment by simple majority, special majority, and special majority plus state ratification. 2) Key Supreme Court cases that have shaped the amendment process, including establishing that fundamental rights can be amended but amendments cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution. 3) The basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala that limits parliamentary power to amend the Constitution in a way that does not alter its basic features.

1. Amendment of the Constitution

2. Necessity of Amending Provisions in the
Constitution
To overcome the difficulties which may encounter in
future in the working of the constitution
If no provision is made for the amenability of Indian
Constitution, the people will have to recourse to
extra constitutional method like revolution to change
the Constitution
To avoid any kind of rigidity

3. Part xx :Amendment of the Constitution
Article 368 (1) : Parliament in exercise of constituent
power amend the constitution
Article 368 (2) :Amendment by only introduction of Bill in
both the houses and majority vote
Provided that certain amendment to be ratified by
Legislatures of not less than one half of the states

4. Article 368 (3) : Article 13 shall nit apply to any
amendment made under this act
Article 368 (4) : No amendment shall be questionable at
the court of law
Article 368 (5) : There shall be no limitation of power of
the Parliament

5. From Article 368, various articles are
divided into three categories
1. Amendment by Simple majority
2. Amendment by Special Majority
3. By Special Majority and Ratification by States

6. 1. Amendment process in Australia : It can only be
proposed by an absolute majority of both Houses of
Parliament.
It must be submitted to the electors for approval
within 6 months and must be approved by a majority of
the States

7. 2. Amendment in America : Constitutional Amendment can
be proposed in 2 ways :
i. By 2/3 of the votes of both Houses or
ii. By a convention called on the application of the
Legislatures of 2/3 of the States
Ratification can be done by :
i. By the legislatures of ¾ of the States
ii. By convention in ¾ states

8. Procedure for amendment of Indian
constitution:
1. Amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill
for the purpose in either house of the Parliament
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private
member and does not require the permission of the President
3. The bill must be passed in each house by a special majority,
that is, a majority of the total membership of the house and a
majority of two-thirds of the members of the house present
and voting

9. 4. Each house must pass the bill separately. If there is any
disagreement, there is no provision for joint sitting of the
houses
5. If the bill seeks to amend the provisions of the
constitution, it must be ratified by the legislatures of half of
the states by a simple majority
6. After passage of the bill by both the houses, it is presented
to the President for his assent
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can
neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for
reconsideration of the Parliament
8. After the President’s assent, the bill becomes an act

10. Amendment of Fundamental Rights
The question whether fundamental right can be amended
under Article 368 came for the consideration before the
Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
Facts: The constitutional validity of the Constitution (1st
Amendment) Act,1951 was challenged on the ground that
it takes away the rights conferred in Part III. It was argued
that the “State” in Article 12 includes Parliament and the
word “Law” in Article 13, therefore must include
constitution amendment

11. Judgment : The SC rejected the argument and held that
the power to amend the Constitution including
fundamental rights is contained in Article 368 and the
word Law includes only ordinary law made in exercise
of the Legislative powers and not Constitutional
Amendment. Therefore, even if it takes away FR the
constitutional amendment will still be valid.

12. In Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan the validity of 17th
Amendment Act was challenged, the Supreme Court
upheld the decision of Shankari Prasad decision.
However, in Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab the same was
challenged and Supreme Court by a majority of 6 TO 5
prospectively overruled its earlier decision.

13.  A certain family in Punjab – Henry and William Golak Nath owned 500 acres of
farmland. However, in 1953, the Punjab government came up with the Punjab
Security and Land Tenures Act. As per the Act, a person can own only 30 Standard
acres (or 60 ordinary acres) of land. Hence the Golak Nath family was ordered to
forgo the excess land and was allowed to keep only 30 acres of the said land ( a few
acres apart from the 30 acres of land would go to the tenants).
 The Golak Nath family went to court, challenging the validity of the 1953 Act. The
family’s main argument was-
1. The 1953 law obstructed their right to own property as enshrined in Article 19(1)(f).
2. The law further prevented them from going ahead with a profession of their choice.
3. The law threatened their right to get equal protection, as stated in Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution.
4. On top of that, the family also urged the court to declare the 17th Amendment (
through which the 1953 law came into being) as unlawful.

14. Justice Subba Rao came to the conclusion that the 17th
Amendment violated the fundamental rights of acquiring
any land and indulging in any lawful profession granted to
the Indian citizens by the Constitution. However, since he
used the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, the Supreme
Court’s ruling did not affect the validity of the 17th
Amendment and hence the 1953 law. However, Justice
Subba Rao added that from then on, the Parliament
would have no power to make any amendment to Part
III of the Constitution that deals with the fundamental
rights of the citizens.

15. Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC
1461
 A landmark case in the constitutional and legal history of
India, which provided a definite answer to the issue of
whether the power of the Parliament to amend the
Constitution is absolute and unqualified. The decision in
Kesavananda Bharati case laid down the “basic structure
doctrine” of the Indian Constitution

16.  The Kerala State government enacted the Land Reforms
Amendment Act in 1969, which conferred upon the government
the right to acquire some of the land owned by Edneer Mutt, of
which Keshav Nand Bharti was the leader.
 writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution to enforce his rights guaranteed by Article 25 which
confers the right to practise and propagate religion), Article 26
which guarantees the right to administer religious affairs, Article
14 provides right to equality, Article 19(1)(f) provides freedom to
acquire property, and Article 31 which provides for Compulsory
Acquisition of Property.
 While the petition was still being heard by the court, the Kerala
government passed another act, i.e., the Kerala Land Reforms
Amendment Act 1971.

17.  The issues in this case was:
1. Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971 is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act 1972 is constitutionally valid?
3. What is the extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to
amend the Constitution?

18.  The thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda
Bharti Case 1973 by a majority of 7:6 held that the Parliament
has the authority to amend any clause of the constitution as
long as the amendment does not violate the Basic Structure of
the Constitution.
 The court, using social engineering and balancing the interests of
both litigants, determined that neither the Parliament nor the
Supreme Court has the authority to corrode the Basic Structure of
the Constitution, nor can it withdraw the mandate to create a
welfare state and a fair society. The Basic Structure Doctrine was
thus formulated in the Kesavananda case which implied that,
although the Parliament has the authority to amend the entire
Constitution, they must do so in a way that does not contradict the
features so fundamental to the Constitution that it would be
spiritless without them.

19. Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India AIR 1980 SC
1789
 Minerva Mills was a textile factory in the Indian state of Karnataka that
mass-produced silk garments and sold them to the general
population. In 1971, the Government of India acquired the Minerva
Mills Company and nationalized the company.
 From the judgement following are the basic structure of the
Constitution :
1. Limited power of the Parliament to amend the constitution
2. Harmony and Balance between FR and DPSP
3. Fundamental Rights in some cases
4. Power of Judicial Review in certain cases