The Indian Constitution stands as one of the world’s most detailed and adaptable legal documents. Central to its flexibility is Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which confers the power to amend the Constitution itself. This single provision has enabled India to balance both continuity and change, allowing lawmakers to address societal, political, and economic shifts without sacrificing constitutional integrity.
Yet, this power has sparked intense debate—how far can Parliament amend the Constitution? Where is the line between necessary reform and overreach? This article unpacks the history, mechanisms, judicial interpretations, and lasting implications of Article 368, revealing why it remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional governance.
Article 368 vests in the Indian Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution. The provision outlines both the procedural requirements and the limits of this power.
Article 368 does not impose substantive restrictions on the types of amendments possible, making procedural compliance the primary threshold. However, over time, the judiciary has shaped boundaries through landmark judgments.
India’s founding leaders recognized the importance of adaptability. The country’s diversity—linguistic, cultural, economic—demanded a living Constitution that could evolve with changing times. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect, noted:
“No Constitution can be static; if it is to serve the needs of a dynamic society, it must possess the capacity for orderly change.”
The importance of Article 368 became evident early in India’s post-independence history. As new challenges arose—land reforms, social justice initiatives, economic changes—amendments enabled the government to respond proactively while conforming to democratic principles.
The First Amendment (1951) responded to Supreme Court rulings curbing state power on land reforms, clarifying state authority and enabling crucial policy moves. This set a precedent for the balance between judicial oversight and legislative intent.
Despite the broad amending power, Indian courts have played a critical role in limiting Parliament’s reach to protect constitutional fundamentals.
Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965): Initially, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court reversed its stance, holding that Parliament could not curtail Fundamental Rights via amendments, which triggered widespread debate.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This watershed ruling articulated the “basic structure doctrine,” stating that:
“Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.”
While not exhaustively defined, examples include:
– Supremacy of the Constitution
– Rule of law
– Separation of powers
– Judicial review
– Federalism
– Secularism
This doctrine ensures that while the Constitution is flexible, its core identity cannot be obliterated by transient majorities.
While the process is robust, political realities influence outcomes. Coalition politics, strong opposition, and federal disagreements can hinder controversial amendments. Moreover, public opinion and activism, amplified by media and civil society, often sway legislative priorities and shape the debate around proposed changes.
India’s constitutional history is marked by over 100 amendments, each reflective of contemporary priorities and challenges.
Enacted during the Emergency, this amendment sought to strengthen Parliament’s hand, curb judicial review, and expand the Directive Principles. Yet, its perceived overreach led to subsequent backtracking by the 44th Amendment (1978), restoring many checks and balances.
More recently, the 101st Amendment (2016) introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), dramatically reshaping India’s indirect tax system in response to modern economic realities. Such examples underscore how Article 368 enables adaptation in the national interest.
The continuing evolution of Article 368 illustrates its centrality to India’s democratic fabric. It provides the legal mechanism for updating the Constitution, preserving national unity, promoting justice, and supporting economic growth.
On the other hand, the basic structure doctrine acts as a constitutional “safety valve.” This ensures that fundamental values survive political turbulence, preventing temporary majorities from undermining the bedrock principles of Indian democracy.
“Article 368 underscores the delicate balance between constitutional rigidity and openness to reform—essential for a country as diverse and dynamic as India.”
— Professor A. Ramesh, Constitutional Law Scholar
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution exemplifies a pragmatic vision: embracing both durability and responsiveness. By combining procedural rigor with substantive limits (via judicial oversight), the provision ensures the Constitution remains a living document—one that adapts without losing sight of its foundational ideals.
For legal professionals, policymakers, and citizens alike, understanding the functioning and limitations of Article 368 is crucial. As India continues to face new challenges, the amending power will undoubtedly remain a focal point for debate, reform, and the quest for a just society.
What is Article 368 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 368 outlines the process and authority for amending the Constitution of India. It empowers Parliament to make changes, subject to specific procedures and, for certain cases, ratification by State legislatures.
Can Parliament amend any part of the Indian Constitution under Article 368?
While Parliament has broad amending power, the Supreme Court’s “basic structure doctrine” restricts changes that would alter the fundamental identity or essential features of the Constitution.
What is the basic structure doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine is a judicial principle that limits Parliament’s amendment power by protecting key constitutional concepts like federalism, the rule of law, and judicial independence from being diluted or destroyed.
Why is the 42nd Amendment called the “Mini-Constitution”?
The 42nd Amendment made sweeping changes—altering the preamble, curbing judicial review, and expanding governmental power—earning it the nickname “Mini-Constitution” due to its vast scope.
How are amendments ratified at the state level?
For certain categories of amendments (mainly those affecting federal relations or executive power), at least half of India’s State legislatures must ratify the proposed change after it passes Parliament.
Why is Article 368 important today?
Article 368 maintains the Constitution’s relevance by allowing reforms in response to changing socio-political needs while safeguarding core democratic values through judicial oversight.
India’s criminal justice system is built upon countless statutes, but few are as frequently invoked—yet…
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a dynamic system underpinned by a deeply embedded…
Social justice sits at the heart of the Indian Constitution, woven into its fabric through…
India’s federal structure, as designed by the framers of the Constitution, anticipates both cooperation and…
Few decisions in Indian judicial history have transformed the interpretation of fundamental rights as profoundly…
In the digital era, internet freedom—and its limits—are fiercely debated across India. Section 67A of…