Article 368 is the provision of the Constitution of India that confers on Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution and prescribes the procedure for doing so. Under Indian law, the amending power under Article 368 is subject to the judicially imposed limitation that it cannot be used to alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Legal definition
Article 368 of the Constitution of India, as amended by the 24th and 42nd Amendments, provides:
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.
The Constitution recognises three categories of amendments based on the majority required:
- Simple majority: Amendments to provisions like admission of new states (Article 2), creation of new states (Article 3), and salaries of members of Parliament — these are treated as ordinary legislation and do not require the Article 368 procedure
- Special majority: The standard Article 368 procedure — majority of total membership of each House plus two-thirds of members present and voting
- Special majority plus ratification: Amendments affecting federal structure, the judiciary, or the Seventh Schedule require the special majority plus ratification by at least half the State Legislatures. This includes amendments to Article 368 itself, Articles 54-55 (election of President), Articles 73-162 (executive power), the Seventh Schedule, and representation of states in Parliament
The proviso to Article 368(2) lists the specific provisions that require ratification by State Legislatures.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India [AIR 1951 SC 458]
The Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The term "law" in Article 13(2) was interpreted to mean ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendments. This decision established that the constituent power under Article 368 was unlimited.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643]
An 11-judge bench overruled Shankari Prasad and held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights through the Article 368 procedure. The majority held that Article 368 merely prescribed the procedure for amendment but did not confer substantive power to amend. This decision triggered the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971), which expressly declared that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225]
A 13-judge Constitution Bench — the largest ever assembled — overruled Golaknath and upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment. The Court held that Article 368 confers both the power and the procedure for amendment. However, the majority held that the amending power is subject to an implied limitation: Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy or abrogate the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This decision remains the most consequential in Indian constitutional history.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1980) 3 SCC 625]
The Court struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which had declared that no amendment under Article 368 could be questioned in any court. The Court held that the limited nature of the amending power is itself a basic feature — Parliament cannot convert a limited power into an unlimited one.
Why this matters
Article 368 is the engine of constitutional evolution in India. Since 1950, the Constitution has been amended over 105 times — far more frequently than most other constitutions. The relatively flexible procedure (compared to, say, the US Constitution's requirement of three-fourths state ratification for all amendments) has enabled the Constitution to adapt to changing social, economic, and political conditions.
For practitioners, understanding Article 368 is essential whenever the validity of a constitutional amendment is in question. The basic structure limitation means that every amendment is potentially subject to judicial review — the Supreme Court can strike down an amendment if it destroys a feature recognised as basic. The list of basic features is not exhaustive and has expanded incrementally through judicial decisions.
A critical point of practice is that the President "shall give his assent" to a duly passed amendment bill. Unlike ordinary legislation where the President can return a bill for reconsideration under Article 111, there is no analogous power to withhold or return a constitutional amendment bill. The 24th Amendment made this mandatory by substituting "shall" for "may" in Article 368(2).
Related terms
Directly related:
Constitutional foundations:
Frequently asked questions
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
Yes. Following Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, through the Article 368 procedure. However, such amendments must not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights themselves are considered part of the basic structure, so while individual provisions can be modified, the essence of fundamental rights cannot be abrogated.
What is the difference between the 24th Amendment and the basic structure doctrine?
The 24th Amendment (1971) expressly declared that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368 and made Presidential assent to amendment bills mandatory. The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), imposed a judicial limitation on this very power — amendments cannot destroy the basic structure. The two operate in tandem: Article 368 grants wide amending power, but the basic structure doctrine limits its outer boundaries.
How many constitutional amendments have been made so far?
As of 2026, over 105 constitutional amendments have been enacted. The most recent significant amendments include the 103rd Amendment (2019) providing 10% reservation for economically weaker sections, the 104th Amendment (2020) extending reservation for SCs/STs in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, and the 106th Amendment (2023) reserving one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for women.
Can a constitutional amendment be challenged in court?
Yes. Since Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments to determine whether they violate the basic structure. Several amendments have been struck down, including parts of the 39th Amendment (in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975) and the 42nd Amendment (in Minerva Mills, 1980). The amendment is tested not against Fundamental Rights but against the judicially evolved basic structure standard.
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.