Constitution of India

The Constituent Assembly was formed under the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946), NOT the Cripps Mission. Total strength was 389 (later 299 after Partition). Members were INDIRECTLY elected by Provincial Assemblies via proportional representation (single transferable vote). First meeting: 9 December 1946; Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha was the temporary/provisional President. Dr. Rajendra Prasad became permanent President on 11 December 1946. The Objective Resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. Memory aid: 'Sinha started, Prasad presided.' The Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into force on 26 January 1950 (chosen to commemorate Purna Swaraj Day of 1930). It took 2 years, 11 months, 18 days.

Drafting Committee (most important): Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — 7 members. Union Powers Committee, Union Constitution Committee, and States Committee: all chaired by Jawaharlal Nehru. Provincial Constitution Committee: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Patel also chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities. Rules of Procedure Committee and Steering Committee: Dr. Rajendra Prasad. B.N. Rau was the Constitutional Advisor (not a Drafting Committee member). H.V.R. Iyengar was Secretary. Memory aid: Nehru = 'Union' man; Patel = 'Provincial + Rights'; Prasad = 'Rules + Steering'. Drafting Committee 7 members: Ambedkar, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, K.M. Munshi, Saiyid Saadulla, N. Madhava Rau (replaced B.L. Mitter), T.T. Krishnamachari (replaced D.P. Khaitan).

India's Constitution did not appear out of thin air. The Drafting Committee, sitting between 1947 and 1949, openly borrowed institutions and ideas from every major constitutional democracy of the time — and from one Act of British India. UPSC Prelims tests these "borrowed features" almost every single year because the source country is the cleanest distractor an examiner can build. Master the list below and you have locked in two or three guaranteed marks.

Definition: A borrowed feature is a constitutional provision in the Indian Constitution that the framers deliberately modelled on a similar provision in another country's constitution or in an Act of Parliament. Borrowing was conscious, not accidental — Dr B R Ambedkar called it "ransacking the constitutions of the world" so that India might inherit the best of each.

The Government of India Act, 1935 — the single largest source

The GoI Act, 1935 is by far the single largest source of the Indian Constitution. From it we took the federal scheme, the office of the Governor, emergency provisions, public service commissions, administrative details, and a large portion of the language itself. Roughly two-thirds of the original text of the Constitution traces structurally back to the 1935 Act. If you remember nothing else, remember this: GoI 1935 is the largest single source.

United Kingdom — the parliamentary spine

From the UK we borrowed the parliamentary form of government, single citizenship, the cabinet system, bicameralism, the rule of law, the legislative procedure, the office of the Speaker and his functioning, and the system of prerogative writs. The Westminster style of executive-accountable-to-legislature, vote-of-no-confidence and Prime-Minister-as-leader-of-the-majority all come from here.

United States — the rights and review spine

From the US we took Fundamental Rights as enforceable judicial rights, judicial review, the independence of the judiciary, the impeachment of the President, the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the basic idea of a preamble. Together with the UK borrowings, the US influence gives India a system that is parliamentary in form but rights-based in substance — a uniquely Indian fusion.

Ireland — directives and Rajya Sabha details

From Ireland came the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), the procedure for nomination of members to the Rajya Sabha (12 nominated members), and the method of election of the President (electoral college, proportional representation, single transferable vote).

Canada — strong-centre federalism

From Canada the framers borrowed the model of a federation with a strong centre, the placing of residuary powers with the Centre (Article 248), the appointment of state Governors by the Centre, and the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Canadian-style federalism is what makes India a "Union of States" rather than a US-style federation of equals.

Australia — concurrent and joint mechanisms

From Australia we took the Concurrent List (the middle column of the Seventh Schedule), the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament (Article 108), the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse between states (Article 301), and the language for the preamble's opening to some extent.

South Africa — amendment procedure

From South Africa came the procedure for amendment of the Constitution (Article 368) and the system for the election of members of the Rajya Sabha.

USSR — duties and ideals

From the erstwhile USSR we drew Fundamental Duties (Article 51A, added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976) and the ideals of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble.

France — republic and Preamble values

From France we borrowed the idea of a Republic as a form of government and the trinity of values in our Preamble — liberty, equality and fraternity.

Japan — procedure established by law

From Japan we adopted the phrase "procedure established by law" (Article 21), which was later expanded by the judiciary in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) to include a "due process" reading.

Weimar Constitution (Germany) — emergency suspension

From the Weimar Republic of Germany came the provisions for suspension of Fundamental Rights during an emergency (Article 358 and 359). Many critics, including Granville Austin, have pointed out the irony — the same Weimar mechanism enabled the collapse into Nazism.

Why it matters

Why it matters: UPSC Prelims has asked at least one "borrowed features" question in over a dozen recent years (sometimes two — see Prelims 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023). The questions are deceptively simple match-the-source MCQs where one option swaps two countries. If you have a clear mental table, the marks are yours. If not, two minutes are lost guessing.

Real-world example

Real-world example: When the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha disagreed during the passage of the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977, a joint sitting was summoned — that constitutional mechanism is a direct Australian import. Similarly, when the Supreme Court issued the famous Kesavananda Bharati (1973) ruling using judicial review to strike down a constitutional amendment, it was exercising a power borrowed from the United States.

Common misconception

Common misconception: Students often credit the UK with our Fundamental Rights — because they associate "rights" with "Magna Carta". This is wrong. The UK has no written Bill of Rights of the modern, enforceable kind; Fundamental Rights are borrowed from the United States. The UK contributed the rule of law and the writs, but not the rights themselves.

Another trap: DPSP is from Ireland, not from the USSR. The USSR gave us Fundamental Duties. Swap them in your head only at your own risk.

Worked example — UPSC-style match

Question: Match the following constitutional provisions with their borrowed source.
A. Concurrent List — 1. Ireland
B. Directive Principles — 2. Canada
C. Appointment of Governors — 3. Australia
D. Fundamental Duties — 4. USSR

Solution:
Step 1: Concurrent List → Australia.
Step 2: Directive Principles → Ireland.
Step 3: Appointment of Governors → Canada.
Step 4: Fundamental Duties → USSR.
Conclusion: A–3, B–1, C–2, D–4.

:::compare

:::keypoints

• GoI Act 1935 is the single LARGEST source — accounts for the bulk of structural provisions.
• UK = parliamentary spine; USA = rights-and-review spine; Ireland = directives.
• Strong-centre federalism + residuary powers + Governor appointment = Canada.
• Concurrent List, joint sitting, freedom of trade = Australia.
• Fundamental Duties = USSR; Republic + liberty-equality-fraternity = France.
• Procedure established by law = Japan; emergency FR suspension = Weimar Germany.
• Amendment procedure = South Africa.
  :::

:::memory
"GUCI-CASA-UFJW" — a phonetic mnemonic for the source order:
G(oI 1935) → U(K) → C(anada/USA — careful: C twice, USA is separate) → I(reland) → C(anada) → A(ustralia) → S(outh Africa) → U(SSR) → F(rance) → J(apan) → W(eimar).
A simpler hook: remember that the FOUR biggest contributors are GoI-1935, UK, US, and Ireland — they cover roughly 80% of Prelims questions.
:::

:::recap

• The framers borrowed openly — Ambedkar called it "ransacking the world's constitutions".
• GoI Act 1935 dominates; UK and USA together shape the rest of the political-rights spine.
• Match-the-source MCQs are the standard Prelims framing — memorise the table column-wise.
• Trap to avoid: FRs are from the USA, DPSP from Ireland, FDs from the USSR — do not swap.
  :::

Order of keywords (memory aid 'SSSDR' for nature + 'JLEF' for objectives): India is described as SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLIC. Objectives: JUSTICE (social, economic, political), LIBERTY (thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), EQUALITY (of status and opportunity), FRATERNITY (assuring dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the Nation). The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 added THREE words: 'SOCIALIST', 'SECULAR', and 'INTEGRITY'. The Preamble has been amended only ONCE (42nd Amendment). In Berubari Union case (1960) SC held Preamble is NOT part of Constitution; in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) it reversed this — Preamble IS part of the Constitution and can be amended without destroying basic structure. The Preamble is non-justiciable.

The Indian Constitution is not just a legal document — it is a conscious synthesis, drafted between December 1946 and November 1949, that borrowed the best institutional practices the framers could find and welded them onto Indian soil. Knowing its "salient features" is not about memorising bullets; it is about understanding the design choices our founders made and the trade-offs each choice carries. UPSC Prelims regularly tests this chapter through one-word switches — replace "rigid" with "completely rigid" and the option becomes wrong.

Definition: A constitution is the fundamental, supreme law of a country, laying down the structure of government, the relationship between organs of state, and the rights and duties of citizens.

Definition: A federal system divides power between a central government and constituent units (states); a unitary system concentrates power in a single central authority. India is described as federal with a unitary bias or quasi-federal, because it combines elements of both.

The lengthiest written constitution in the world

The Indian Constitution, as adopted on 26 November 1949 and commenced on 26 January 1950, had a Preamble, 395 Articles arranged in 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules. After more than seventy years of amendments, the working Constitution today contains about 470 Articles, 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules — making it the lengthiest written national constitution in the world.

Why so long? Three reasons. First, the framers had the chance to learn from constitutions already in existence — the UK, US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, Weimar Germany, the USSR, Japan, France — and absorbed whichever provisions they thought useful. Second, India's social diversity meant detailed safeguards were required for minorities, scheduled castes and tribes, women, and linguistic communities. Third, administrative arrangements that would normally be left to ordinary legislation (Centre–State relations, services, finance commission) were entrenched in the Constitution itself to insulate them from political flux.

Blend of rigidity and flexibility

The Constitution can be amended under Article 368, but not uniformly. Some provisions can be changed by a simple majority of Parliament (e.g., creation of new states under Article 3). Some require a special majority — two-thirds of members present and voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. The most fundamental provisions (federal balance, election of the President, lists in the Seventh Schedule) require a special majority PLUS ratification by at least half the state legislatures.

This three-tier amendment design is the practical reason Indian polity has survived more than 100 amendments without losing its core. Rigid where it matters, flexible where flexibility is healthy.

Federal with a strong unitary bias

The Constitution describes India in Article 1 as a "Union of States" — deliberately avoiding the word "federation". Three federal features are present: division of powers between Union and States via Lists in the Seventh Schedule, a written and supreme Constitution, and an independent judiciary to umpire disputes.

But several unitary features push the centre of gravity toward the Union — single citizenship, single Constitution governing both Union and States, an all-India services cadre (IAS, IPS, IFoS), the Governor as the Union's representative in the state, Emergency provisions that allow the Union to override states, and the residuary powers vested in Parliament rather than the states. The Supreme Court's standard phrase, from S.R. Bommai (1994) onwards, is that India is federal in structure but with a unitary bias, sometimes summarised as quasi-federal.

Parliamentary government — the Westminster model

The framers chose the British (Westminster) model of executive accountability over the American presidential model. Key features:

• Nominal head (President) versus real head (Prime Minister).
• Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)).
• Membership of Parliament required for ministers (Article 75(5)).
• Leadership of the executive drawn from the legislature.
• Dissolution of the Lok Sabha as the ultimate check on government.

Why this choice? B.R. Ambedkar argued that the parliamentary system offered "responsibility" (continuous accountability of the executive to the legislature) while the presidential system offered only "stability" (fixed terms). For a young democracy, the framers prioritised responsibility.

Synthesis of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy

In the UK, Parliament is supreme — there is no written constitution above it, and courts cannot strike down primary legislation. In the US, the Supreme Court can strike down any law that violates the written Constitution, giving it judicial supremacy.

India strikes a middle path: Parliament is supreme within the limits of the Constitution; the Supreme Court can review laws against the Constitution but cannot rewrite the Constitution's basic structure. The result is integrated review: a single, vertically integrated court system (Supreme Court → High Courts → subordinate courts) applies both Union and state laws and reviews them against the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties

Part III (Articles 12–35) guarantees Fundamental Rights — justiciable rights enforceable in court, including equality, freedom, against exploitation, freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and constitutional remedies.

Part IV (Articles 36–51) lays down Directive Principles of State Policy — non-justiciable guidelines for the state, drawn from the Irish constitution, aimed at economic and social justice.

Part IV-A (Article 51A), added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), lists Fundamental Duties — currently eleven duties of every citizen.

Together they form the trinity of rights, principles, and duties that defines the Indian citizen's relationship with the state.

Indian secularism, universal franchise, single citizenship

Indian secularism is positive — the state has no official religion but does not maintain a strict wall of separation; it can intervene to reform religious practices (e.g., abolishing untouchability). The relevant words "secular" and "socialist" were inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

Universal Adult Franchise — every citizen aged 18 and above (lowered from 21 by the 61st Amendment, 1989) has the right to vote, irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, or property. This was a radical choice in 1950, when many democracies still restricted franchise by literacy or property.

Single citizenship means an Indian is a citizen of India, not separately of any state — unlike the US, where one is a citizen of both the United States and a particular state. Single citizenship reinforces national unity in a diverse federation.

Emergency provisions, three-tier government, independent bodies

The Constitution provides for three kinds of emergency: National Emergency (Article 352), State Emergency / President's Rule (Article 356), and Financial Emergency (Article 360). During an emergency the federal system can effectively become unitary.

The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992) added Panchayats and Municipalities as a constitutional third tier — Parts IX and IX-A and Schedules 11 and 12 — making India a three-tier federation: Union, States, and Local Bodies.

Several constitutional bodies are guaranteed independence from political interference: the Election Commission (Article 324), the Comptroller and Auditor General (Article 148), the Union Public Service Commission (Article 315), the Finance Commission, and the National Commissions for SCs, STs, and OBCs.

Worked example

Question: Which of the following pairs is correctly matched? (a) Single citizenship — borrowed from USA; (b) Directive Principles — borrowed from Ireland; (c) Parliamentary system — borrowed from USA; (d) Federation — borrowed from UK.

Solution:
Step 1: Single citizenship is an Indian innovation, NOT borrowed from the USA (which has dual citizenship). Mark (a) wrong.
Step 2: Directive Principles were borrowed from the Irish Constitution. Mark (b) correct.
Step 3: Parliamentary system was borrowed from the UK, not the USA. Mark (c) wrong.
Step 4: Federation was borrowed mainly from Canada. Mark (d) wrong.
Conclusion: The correct answer is (b) — Directive Principles from Ireland.

Real-world example

Real-world example: During the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020, the central government invoked the National Disaster Management Act and issued binding orders across all states. Critics pointed out that the Constitution allowed this only because of the "unitary bias" embedded by the founders — a strict federation like the US could not have ordered a uniform national lockdown. The same architectural choice that lets the Union act in a public-health emergency also lets it impose President's Rule on an opposition-ruled state — which is why "federal with unitary bias" is a feature with two faces.

Common misconception

Common misconception: "The Constitution describes India as a federation." Wrong. Article 1 calls India a Union of States — a phrase chosen by Dr. Ambedkar precisely to distance India from a US-style federation that arose from a compact between sovereign states. India was not formed by states agreeing to come together; the states were created by the Constitution itself.

:::compare

:::keypoints

• Originally 395 Articles, 22 Parts, 8 Schedules; currently about 470 Articles, 25 Parts, 12 Schedules.
• World's lengthiest written constitution, drafted in just under three years.
• Article 368 allows three modes of amendment — simple, special, special + state ratification.
• Federal in structure with a strong unitary bias — "Union of States", not "federation".
• Parliamentary system from the UK; integrated, single judiciary.
• Trinity of Fundamental Rights (Part III), Directive Principles (Part IV), and Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A).
• Universal Adult Franchise; voting age lowered to 18 by the 61st Amendment, 1989.
• 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) added the third tier of local government.
• Independent constitutional bodies: Election Commission, CAG, UPSC, Finance Commission.
  :::

:::memory
"PURE FIST" for salient features: Parliamentary government, Universal franchise, Rights and duties (and DPSP), Emergency provisions, Federal with unitary bias, Independent judiciary, Single citizenship, Three-tier government.
:::

:::recap

• The Constitution is the world's longest written national constitution.
• It combines rigidity (basic structure, federal balance) with flexibility (simple-majority amendments).
• India is a quasi-federal "Union of States" with a Westminster parliamentary system.
• The 42nd, 61st, 73rd, and 74th Amendments each reshaped major features.
• Most features are borrowed; Indian secularism and single citizenship are distinctive.
  :::

A constitution is not just a long legal document — it is also a promise, and the Preamble is where that promise is read out loud. UPSC Prelims keeps returning to one deceptively simple question: can Parliament change that promise? The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment gave India its definitive answer.

Definition: The Preamble is the introductory statement of the Constitution that lays down its objectives — Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity — and identifies the source of authority as "We, the People of India".

Definition: The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicially-evolved principle that says Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter the essential features ("basic structure") of the Constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharati Verdict (1973)

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) was decided by the largest-ever bench in Indian judicial history — 13 judges of the Supreme Court. The petitioner, a Kerala seer named Swami Kesavananda Bharati, had challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act under Article 26. The case ballooned into the most important constitutional question India had yet faced: Is the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 unlimited?

By a wafer-thin 7:6 majority, the Court delivered three landmark rulings.

• First, it overruled Golaknath (1967) and held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Second, it held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can therefore be amended under Article 368.
• Third — and most importantly — it placed an outer limit on that power: the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered, even by a constitutional amendment. Anything the court reads as "basic" (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, secular and democratic character, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, the rule of law) is now beyond Parliament's reach.

In effect, the Court told Parliament: amend the Preamble if you must, but do not amputate its soul.

The Preamble after Kesavananda

For decades before 1973 there had been confusion over whether the Preamble was even a part of the Constitution. In Berubari Union (1960) the Supreme Court had said the Preamble was a key to opening the minds of the framers but was not a part of the Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati reversed this — yes, the Preamble is a part of the Constitution.

The very next step, in 42nd Amendment (1976), used this power: Parliament inserted the words "Socialist", "Secular" and "Integrity" into the Preamble. The amendment was upheld because these additions did not destroy the basic structure — they arguably reinforced it.

The position was reaffirmed in LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995), where the Supreme Court explicitly said the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and a guide to constitutional interpretation.

What the Preamble can — and cannot — do

This is the trap-zone that UPSC loves. Three subtle distinctions you must memorise:

• The Preamble is not a source of power for the legislature or executive. They cannot point to it and claim authority to act.
• The Preamble is not a limitation on those powers either — it doesn't directly cap what Parliament may do.
• The Preamble is non-justiciable — you cannot go to a court and say "my fundamental right under the Preamble has been violated", because the Preamble does not confer enforceable rights.

What the Preamble can do is serve as an interpretive key. Courts use it to resolve ambiguities in the constitutional text. As Chief Justice Sikri put it in Kesavananda, the Preamble shows the "general purposes" behind the various provisions.

Why it matters: This is one of the most heavily-tested zones in UPSC Prelims and Mains. Statements like "The Preamble is a source of power for the legislature" (FALSE) or "The Preamble cannot be amended" (FALSE — it can, just not its basic features) appear almost every year. The Kesavananda doctrine has since been invoked to strike down major amendments — Minerva Mills (1980) and Waman Rao (1981) for example — and remains the single most important judicial limit on Indian Parliament.

Real-world example: When the NJAC Act (99th Amendment, 2014) tried to replace the collegium system for judicial appointments, the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015 citing the basic structure doctrine — judicial independence was held to be a basic feature. Similarly, in 2024 the Supreme Court is hearing pleas to delete "Socialist" and "Secular" from the Preamble; the petitions test the same Kesavananda boundary all over again.

Common misconception: A surprising number of aspirants think the 42nd Amendment (1976) originally inserted the Preamble's words. In fact, the Preamble was drafted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 and adopted on 26 November 1949. The 42nd Amendment only added three words to an already existing Preamble: "Socialist", "Secular", "Integrity". Another common error — the Preamble was NOT amended in 1973; Kesavananda Bharati was a judgment, not an amendment.

Question: Which of the following statements about the Preamble of the Indian Constitution is/are correct?
(1) It is a part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368.
(2) It is a source of substantive power to the legislature.
(3) It is justiciable and rights can be enforced through courts.
(4) The 'basic features' of the Preamble cannot be altered.

Solution:
Step 1: Recall Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Preamble is part of the Constitution, amendable, but not basic features. So (1) and (4) are correct.
Step 2: Recall settled doctrine → Preamble is NOT a source of power. So (2) is wrong.
Step 3: Recall Berubari and subsequent rulings → Preamble is non-justiciable. So (3) is wrong.
Conclusion: Only statements (1) and (4) are correct.

:::compare

:::keypoints

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — 13-judge bench, 7:6 majority — gave India the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• The Preamble is a part of the Constitution; it can be amended; its basic features cannot.
• 42nd Amendment (1976) added "Socialist, Secular, Integrity" to the Preamble.
• Berubari Union (1960) earlier said Preamble was NOT a part — overruled by Kesavananda.
• LIC of India (1995) reaffirmed the Preamble as an integral part of the Constitution.
• Preamble is non-justiciable: not enforceable, not a source of power, not a limitation.
• Doctrine has been invoked in Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1981), and NJAC case (2015).
  :::

:::memory
KBP — 1973 — 13 — 7:6 = Kesavananda Bharati case, year 1973, 13 judges, 7:6 majority.
For things the Preamble is NOT: "SLP-NJ" — Not a Source of power, Not a Limitation, Not Justiciable.
Words added by 42nd Amendment — "SSI": Socialist, Secular, Integrity.
:::

:::recap

• The Preamble is part of the Constitution and amendable, but its basic features are protected forever.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the founding case; LIC (1995) reaffirmed it.
• Preamble is non-justiciable — useful for interpretation, not for filing a writ.
• The 42nd Amendment is the only time the Preamble itself has been formally amended.
  :::

Memory aid '1-2-3 territory, money, oath': First — States and Union Territories with their territories. Second — Salaries/emoluments of President, Governors, Speaker, Judges, CAG, etc. Third — Forms of Oaths and Affirmations. Fourth — Allocation of Rajya Sabha seats to states/UTs. Fifth — Administration of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Sixth — Administration of Tribal Areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram. Seventh — Three Lists (Union-100, State-61, Concurrent-52; numbers as currently amended). Eighth — 22 official languages. Ninth — Acts/regulations immune from judicial review (added by 1st Amendment, 1951; but laws added after 24 April 1973 can be reviewed if they violate basic structure — I.R. Coelho, 2007). Tenth — Anti-defection provisions (52nd Amendment, 1985). Eleventh — Panchayat powers (73rd Amendment). Twelfth — Municipality powers (74th Amendment).

Part I (Art 1-4): Union and its territory. Part II (5-11): Citizenship. Part III (12-35): Fundamental Rights. Part IV (36-51): Directive Principles. Part IVA (51A): Fundamental Duties. Part V (52-151): Union government. Part VI (152-237): State government. Part IX (243-243O): Panchayats; Part IXA (243P-243ZG): Municipalities; Part IXB (243ZH-243ZT): Co-operative Societies. Part XI (245-263): Centre-State relations. Part XIV (308-323): Services + Part XIVA (323A-323B): Tribunals. Part XVIII (352-360): Emergency provisions. Part XX (368): Amendment. Memory aid: 'FR=3, DPSP=4, Duties=4A.' Part VII (dealing with Part B states) was repealed by the 7th Amendment, 1956.

Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) was added by the 52nd Amendment, 1985, and the deciding authority is the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman), whose decision is subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan case, 1992). The 91st Amendment (2003) deleted the 'split' exception, retaining only the 'merger' exception (2/3rd of members). Ninth Schedule trap: It was created by the FIRST Amendment Act, 1951, to protect land reform laws from judicial review under Article 31B. However, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the SC held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule AFTER 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date) are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure or Fundamental Rights.

The Indian Constitution is neither too rigid like the American Constitution nor too flexible like the British. Its genius lies in Article 368, which prescribes three different routes to change the basic text — each route gets harder as the subject becomes more federal. This graded difficulty is among the most asked themes in UPSC Prelims.

Definition: Article 368 of the Indian Constitution lays down the procedure for amendment of the Constitution by Parliament and recognises Parliament's "constituent power" — distinct from its ordinary law-making power.

Definition: A special majority under Article 368 means a majority of the total membership of each House AND a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each House — both conditions must be met simultaneously.

Why three routes, and not one?

A Constitution that is too easy to amend invites political mischief; one that is too hard becomes obsolete. The framers, led by Dr Ambedkar, settled on a three-track system depending on what is being amended. Provisions that are trivial or administrative (like the name of a state) can be changed by an ordinary simple majority. Provisions that touch the rights or duties of citizens require a special majority. And provisions that affect the federal balance between the Centre and the states require both a special majority of Parliament and the consent of at least half the state legislatures. This graded structure is the formal answer to the question "How rigid is the Indian Constitution?" — it is partly flexible and partly rigid.

Method 1 — Amendment by simple majority of Parliament

Several provisions can be changed by a simple majority of each House — that is, more than 50% of the members present and voting, same as for an ordinary law. These amendments lie outside the scope of Article 368 and are not even called constitutional amendments in the formal sense. Examples include:

• Admission or establishment of new states (Article 2)
• Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states (Article 3)
• Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in states (Article 169)
• Citizenship — acquisition and termination (Articles 5–11)
• Salaries and allowances of MPs, Speaker, Deputy Speaker etc.
• Quorum in Parliament, rules of procedure, privileges of Parliament

Real-world example: The bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh to create Telangana in 2014 was done by an ordinary law (the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014) passed under Article 3 — by simple majority. It changed the political map of India without invoking Article 368.

Method 2 — Amendment by special majority of Parliament

This is the default Article 368 route. The amendment bill must be passed by each House by a special majority: majority of total membership of that House (>50% of the total strength, not just those present), and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.

This route is used for the bulk of constitutional amendments — including those touching Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles of State Policy, and any provision not covered by Methods 1 or 3.

Example: The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights, was passed by this route.

Method 3 — Special majority of Parliament PLUS state ratification

For provisions that affect the federal structure, a more stringent process applies. After the bill is passed by a special majority of each House of Parliament, it must be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the states by a simple majority. There is no time limit within which states must ratify, and a state's silence does not count as ratification.

The provisions requiring this dual approval include:

• Election of the President (Articles 54 and 55)
• Extent of executive power of the Union and the states (Articles 73 and 162)
• Provisions dealing with the Supreme Court and High Courts
• Distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and states (Seventh Schedule)
• Representation of states in Parliament (Fourth Schedule)
• Article 368 itself
• Any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule
• The GST Council provisions (Article 279A) — added by the 101st Amendment

Real-world example: The 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, which introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), was ratified by more than half of the state legislatures because it altered the Centre–state taxation balance — a textbook federal provision.

Procedural rules common to all amendment bills

A few procedural points are favourites of question-setters:

• An amendment bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament — Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
• It can be introduced by a Minister or a private member.
• It does NOT require the prior permission of the President.
• There is no provision for a joint sitting of the two Houses on an amendment bill. (Joint sitting under Article 108 is for ordinary bills only.)
• The President is bound to give assent to an amendment bill that has been duly passed — the 24th Amendment, 1971 made this assent mandatory.
• The State Legislatures cannot initiate an amendment to the Constitution.

The Basic Structure doctrine — the silent fourth check

Even an amendment passed by the most stringent route is not above judicial review. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not extend to altering the "basic structure" of the Constitution. Features like the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, federalism, secularism and free and fair elections are part of this basic structure and cannot be amended away.

Why it matters: This doctrine is why the Indian Constitution has survived 100+ amendments without losing its identity. It is the unwritten boundary on Article 368.

:::compare

Common misconception: Students often think state ratification means all states must agree, or that ratification needs a special majority in the state assembly. Neither is true — only half of the states must ratify, and a simple majority in the state assembly is enough. Also, the President's assent is mandatory; he has no power to return or withhold it for an amendment bill.

Question: Which of the following constitutional amendments would require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures? (i) Changing the salary of MPs (ii) Amending the Seventh Schedule (iii) Removing Right to Property from Fundamental Rights (iv) Altering the procedure for election of the President.
Solution:
Step 1: Salaries of MPs — simple majority (Method 1). No state ratification.
Step 2: Seventh Schedule — federal provision. Requires Method 3 (ratification).
Step 3: Fundamental Rights — special majority (Method 2). No state ratification.
Step 4: Election of President — federal provision (Articles 54, 55). Requires Method 3.
Conclusion: Only (ii) and (iv) require ratification by at least half the states.

:::keypoints

• Article 368 recognises three methods of amendment: simple majority, special majority, and special majority + state ratification.
• Simple-majority amendments (new states, citizenship, Legislative Councils) fall outside Article 368.
• Special majority = majority of total membership AND two-thirds of those present and voting in each House.
• Federal provisions require ratification by at least half the state legislatures (simple majority in each state).
• An amendment bill may be introduced in either House, by a Minister or private member, without the President's prior permission.
• There is no joint sitting for amendment bills.
• The Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) is the judicial limit on Parliament's amending power.
  :::

:::memory
"50 – 50 – 50 + half": three steps of rigidity. Step 1: ordinary 50%+ majority (simple). Step 2: 50% of total + 2/3 of present-and-voting (special). Step 3: same plus consent of half the states. The numbers climb, and so does the difficulty.
:::

:::recap

• Three routes — simple, special, and special with state ratification — match the political weight of what is being changed.
• Federal provisions (President's election, Seventh Schedule, Article 368, judiciary) always need state ratification.
• Amendment bills can start in either House, need no President's prior nod, and allow no joint sitting.
• The Basic Structure doctrine fences in Parliament's amending power even after due procedure.
  :::

Shankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965): Parliament can amend any part including FRs (Art 368). Golaknath (1967): reversed — FRs cannot be amended/abridged. 24th Amendment (1971): asserted Parliament's power to amend any part. Kesavananda Bharati (1973): landmark — Parliament can amend any part INCLUDING FRs, but cannot alter the 'basic structure' (doctrine born here; 7-6 verdict, 13 judges). 42nd Amendment (1976): tried to make amending power unlimited and exclude judicial review (Sec 4 & 5). Minerva Mills (1980): struck this down; held judicial review and limited amending power are themselves basic features. Waman Rao (1981): basic structure applies to amendments after 24 April 1973. Basic features (illustrative, not exhaustive): supremacy of Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, free & fair elections, parliamentary system, harmony between FRs & DPSP.

Trap: only provisions affecting the federal structure require ratification by half the states. Examples REQUIRING ratification: changes to the manner of election of the President (Art 54, 55); extent of executive power of Union & States; Supreme Court and High Courts; distribution of legislative powers between Centre and States; any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule; representation of states in Parliament; and Article 368 itself. Examples NOT requiring ratification (special majority alone suffices): amending Fundamental Rights, DPSP, or the Preamble. Note that the GST Amendment (101st, 2016) required state ratification because it altered Centre-State financial/legislative powers. Remember: the President MUST give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill (he has no veto/return power after the 24th Amendment).