Constitutional Amendment is the formal process of altering, adding to, or repealing provisions of the Constitution of India through the procedure prescribed in Article 368. Under Indian law, constitutional amendments fall into three categories depending on the majority required: simple majority amendments, special majority amendments, and special majority plus state ratification amendments.
Legal definition
Article 368 of the Constitution provides the procedure for amendment:
Article 368(1): "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article."
Article 368(2): "An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in — (a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162, article 241 or article 279A, or (b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or (c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or (d) the representation of States in Parliament, or (e) the provisions of this article,
the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States."
Notably, a constitutional amendment bill does not require the President's prior recommendation for introduction (unlike money bills), and the President cannot withhold assent — once both Houses pass the bill with the requisite majority, presidential assent is obligatory.
Types of constitutional amendments
Indian constitutional amendments fall into three distinct categories based on the majority required:
Category 1 — Simple majority amendments
Certain provisions of the Constitution can be amended by Parliament through an ordinary legislative process — a simple majority of members present and voting in each House. These are not technically amendments "under Article 368" and include:
- Admission or establishment of new states (Article 2)
- Formation of new states and alteration of boundaries (Article 3)
- Creation or abolition of Legislative Councils in states (Article 169)
- Administration of Scheduled Areas and tribal areas (Fifth and Sixth Schedules)
- Citizenship provisions (Article 11)
- Quorum rules in Parliament (Article 100)
Category 2 — Special majority amendments
The majority of constitutional amendments require a "special majority" in each House of Parliament: a majority of the total membership of that House AND not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. This is the standard Article 368 procedure. Most amendments to Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and the structure of government fall into this category.
Category 3 — Special majority plus state ratification
Amendments that affect the federal balance require, in addition to the special majority in both Houses, ratification by the legislatures of at least one-half of the states (currently 14 out of 28 states). The proviso to Article 368(2) specifies the provisions that trigger this requirement, including: election of the President (Articles 54-55), extent of executive power (Articles 73, 162), the Supreme Court and High Courts (Chapter IV of Part V and Chapter V of Part VI), distribution of legislative powers (Seventh Schedule), representation of states in Parliament, and Article 368 itself.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India [AIR 1951 SC 458]
The first case to consider the scope of the amending power. The Supreme Court held that the word "law" in Article 13(2) — which prohibits the State from making any law that takes away fundamental rights — does not include a constitutional amendment. Therefore, Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 without restriction. This position prevailed until Golak Nath.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR 762]
An 11-judge bench reversed the Shankari Prasad position and held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. The Court prospectively declared that any amendment affecting Fundamental Rights would be void. This decision prompted Parliament to enact the 24th Amendment, which expressly stated that Article 368 confers power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225]
The 13-judge Constitution Bench partially overruled Golak Nath. By a 7-6 majority, the Court held that Parliament does have the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights — but this power is subject to the implicit limitation that the "basic structure" of the Constitution cannot be destroyed. This decision established the Basic Structure Doctrine and remains the governing authority on the scope of amending power.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1980) 3 SCC 625]
The Court struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to remove all limitations on Parliament's amending power by declaring that no amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground. The Court held that the limited nature of the amending power is itself a basic feature — Parliament cannot convert its limited constituent power into an unlimited one.
Why this matters
The constitutional amendment process is the mechanism through which India's living Constitution adapts to changing social, economic, and political circumstances. With over 105 amendments enacted since 1950, the Indian Constitution is among the most frequently amended in the world. Major amendments have reshaped the constitutional landscape — the 1st Amendment introduced reasonable restrictions on free speech, the 42nd Amendment ("Mini Constitution") restructured fundamental rights and directive principles, the 44th Amendment reversed many 42nd Amendment changes, the 73rd and 74th Amendments established local self-government, and the 101st Amendment introduced the Goods and Services Tax.
For practitioners, understanding the amendment process is essential in two contexts. First, when challenging the validity of a constitutional amendment: any amendment that violates the basic structure can be struck down, and the petitioner must demonstrate which basic feature is destroyed. Second, when advising on legislative strategy: certain reforms require constitutional amendments (for instance, adding new fundamental rights or altering the federal distribution of powers), and the choice of amendment category determines the political feasibility — an amendment requiring state ratification is significantly harder to enact than one requiring only a special majority in Parliament.
A common misconception is that the President can refuse assent to a constitutional amendment bill. Unlike ordinary legislation, where the President has the discretion to return a bill for reconsideration under Article 111, Article 368 provides that the President "shall give his assent" once both Houses pass the amendment with the requisite majority. Presidential assent to a constitutional amendment bill is therefore mandatory.
Related terms
Core constitutional concepts:
Provisions affected by amendments:
Frequently asked questions
How many types of constitutional amendments are there in India?
There are three categories. First, provisions amendable by a simple majority of Parliament (e.g., admission of new states under Article 2, creation of Legislative Councils under Article 169). Second, provisions requiring a special majority — a majority of total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting in each House. Third, provisions requiring a special majority plus ratification by at least half the state legislatures — these involve federal-balance provisions such as the election of the President, distribution of legislative powers, and Article 368 itself.
Can a constitutional amendment be challenged in court?
Yes. Following Kesavananda Bharati (1973), any constitutional amendment can be challenged on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power to strike down such amendments. However, amendments cannot be challenged on procedural grounds once the Speaker or Chairman certifies that the bill was passed with the requisite majority — this is a settled position under Article 122.
Can the President refuse assent to a constitutional amendment bill?
No. Under Article 368, once a constitutional amendment bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament with the requisite majority (and ratified by state legislatures where required), the President "shall give his assent." Unlike ordinary legislation, the President has no discretion to withhold assent or return the bill for reconsideration.
How many amendments have been made to the Indian Constitution?
As of 2026, over 105 constitutional amendments have been enacted since the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950. The first amendment was passed in 1951, and amendments continue to be enacted regularly. Major amendments include the 42nd (1976), 44th (1978), 73rd and 74th (1992), 86th (2002), and 101st (2016, introducing GST).
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.