UPSC IAS exam preparation - India's Constitution - Lecture 7

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - being learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

Amendments

[हिंदी में पढ़ें ]

---

1.0 Necessity of amending provisions in the Constitution

Every law undergoes a process of maturing. Societies change, moral values change and it becomes imperative for the law makers to examine whether the law as it exists is sufficient to fulfill the needs and aspirations of the people.  Hence, every State’s Constitution contains within itself, provisions according to which it can be amended. This is done with a view to overcome the difficulties which may be encountered in the future in the working of the constitution.

The following statement of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru gives us an insight into the nature of amendments as visualized by the framers of our Constitution. 

"...while we want this constitution be as solid and permanent as we can make it, there is no permanence in the constitution. There should be certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent you stop the nation's growth, of a living vital, organic people ..... In any event, we could not make this constitution so rigid that it cannot be adapted to changing conditions. When the world is in a period of transition what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow." 

Though every constitution has a procedure for amendments, in a rigid constitution the procedure is more elaborate and difficult than the enactment of an ordinary legislation. In a flexible constitution, amendment can be effected rather easily. Provisions for amendment of the constitution are made with a view to overcome the difficulties which maybe encountered in the future in the working of the constitution. Social, economic and political conditions of the people go on changing, and hence the constitutional law of the country must also change. If no provisions were made for amendment of the constitution, the people may have to take recourse to extra constitutional methods to change it. The framers of the Indian constitution were anxious to have a document which could grow with a growing nation, and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of a growing people. A constitution which is static ultimately becomes a big hurdle in the path of the dynamic progress of the nation.

 

1.1 Amendment provisions in other constitutions

U.S.A.: In the U.S.A., amendment of the constitution may be proposed only by Congress, with the approval of 2/3 of majority of both houses (Congress and Senate), or a convention summoned on an application from 2/3 of the members of both houses. The proposed amendments must be ratified by at least ¾ of the total number of the state legislatures or by conventions in ¾ of the total numbers of the states.

The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and  has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments (along with two others that were not ratified at the time) were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791. These first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. 

SWITZERLAND: In Switzerland, no alteration of the constitution can be effected without resorting to a referendum.

AUSTRALIA: In Australia, amendment of the constitution can be carried out only by an Act passed by an absolute majority in both houses of the Parliament,  or in case one house refuses to pass it, by an Act passed by an absolute majority in either house, for the second time, after an interval of 3 months. But in either houses, the Act must be subjected to a referendum in each state. If in a majority of the states, a majority of the voters approve the amendment, it shall be presented to the governor general for the Royal assent. 

1.2 Three ways to amend the Indian Constitution

Amendment provisions to the Indian Constitution are incorporated in Article 368 of the Constitution. Due to Article 368 the Indian Constitution can neither be called rigid nor flexible, but in fact it is partly rigid and partly flexible. The three ways to amend the Constitution are:

1. by a simple majority in the Parliament (Second Schedule, Article 100(3), 105, 11, 124, 135, 81, 137)
2. by special majority that is majority of the total membership of each house and by majority of not less than two thirds of the members of each house present and voting, or 
3. by Ratification by the State Legislatures after special majority (Article 73, 162, Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, Seventh Schedule, representation of the State in Parliament and provisions dealing with amendment of the Constitution).

2.0 Constitutional provisions

Article 368 - Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor —

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.

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, 4[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—

1. article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
2. Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
3. any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
4. the representation of States in Parliament, or
5. 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 by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent.

3. Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.

4. No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article [whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976] shall be called in question in any court on any ground.

5. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article.

Article 368 provides for the power and procedure of amendment. The procedure to be followed in India in not strictly rigid or flexible, and further there is a difference in procedure when it affects the federal character of the Union. An amendment can be proposed in either of the Houses. In India all constitutional amendments can be generally effectuated by a Special Majority, i.e., it must be passed by both the houses, with more than 50% of total number of members along with two thirds of members present and voting.

The clause 2 of Art 368 also specifies certain situations in which, apart from the above mentioned, special majority ratification by more than half of the number of States is required. These are:

1. Election of the President
2. Extent of executive power of the Union & State
3. Provisions dealing with the Supreme Court
4. Provisions dealing with High Courts in the States & Union territories
5. Distribution of legislative power between Centre and State
6. Representation of States in Parliament
7. Seventh schedule
8. Art 368 itself

In either of the two procedures after the bill is passed it is reserved for Presidential assent, who in turn is bound to give it. In India the procedure has proved to be far more flexible, as till now 98 amendments have been made. Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, while defending the procedure, contented that the procedure for amendment in the Indian Constitution is simple as compared to the US, Australia or Canada, and deliberately models of convention and referenda are avoided. He further said that it may be possible that in future this power may be used for partisan motives and hence some rigidity is required in the procedure.

2.1 Restriction on Parliament’s power of amending provisions in the constitution, and Judicial Review

Giving to the Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution is as dangerous as not giving any power at all. The framers of the Indian constitution were aware of this fact and so they adopted a middle course. It is neither too rigid to admit necessary amendments, nor too flexible to allow undesirable changes. According to the constitution, parliament and state legislatures in India have the power to make the laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all the laws. If a law made by parliament (or any state legislature) violates any provision of the constitution, the Supreme Court has power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. The process of judicial scrutiny of legislative acts is called Judicial Review. Article 368 of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and encompass all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative enthusiasm of Parliament ever since independence, with the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers. In a democratic nation whenever any law passed by parliament violates any provision of constitution or takes away any fundamental rights of any person, the Supreme Court has the right and the power to strike down that law. This jurisdiction of Supreme Court is essential for protection of basic features of the constitution.

2.2 The Supreme Court and the amendment Power (some landmark cases)

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India: In this case, for the first time, the question as to whether fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court. In that case the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment which added Article 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution was challenged. It was contended that though it may be open to Parliament to amend the provisions in respect of the fundamental rights, the amendments would have to be tested in the light of the provisions contained in Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, with a bench of five judges, unanimously rejected the contention that in so far as the First Amendment took away or abridged the fundamental rights conferred by Part III it should not be upheld in the light of the provisions of article 13(2). 

Notwithstanding the First Amendment, agrarian legislative measures adopted by the States were effectively challenged in the High Courts and two further amendments were passed to save the validity of those measures. The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, amended article 31-A, while the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, amended article 31-A again, and added 44 Acts to the Ninth schedule.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: The validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged in this case. The main contention before the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court was that the Seventeenth Amendment limited the jurisdiction of the High Courts and, therefore, required ratification by one-half of the States under the provisions of article 368. The court unanimously disposed of this contention, but members of the court chose to deal with a second submission, that the decision in the Shankari Prasad case should be reconsidered. The Chief Justice (Gajendragadkar C.J.) in delivering the view of the majority (Gajendragadkar C.J., Wanchoo and Raghubar Dayal JJ.) expressed their full concurrence with the decision in the earlier case. The words "amendment of this constitution" in article 368 plainly and unambiguously meant amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution.

They went on to point out that, even if the powers to amend the fundamental rights were not included in article 368, Parliament could by a suitable amendment assume those powers. The Chief Justice also dealt in his judgment with the wording of article 31B. That article, he considered, left it open to the Legislatures concerned to repeal or amend Acts that had been included in the Ninth Schedule. But the inevitable consequence would be that an amended provision would not receive the protection of article 31B and that its validity could be examined on its merits.

Hidayatullah and Mudholkar J., in separate judgments, gave notice that they would have difficulty in accepting the reasoning in Shankari Prasad's case in regard to the relationship of articles 13 (2) and 368. Hidayatullah J. said that “he would require stronger reasons than those given in that case to make him accept the view that the fundamental rights were not really fundamental, but were intended to be within the power of amendment in common with other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution gives so many assurances in Part III that it would be difficult to think that they were the play things of a special majority.” Mudholkar J. took the view that the word "law" in article 13 (2) included an amendment to the Constitution under article 368. Article 368 does not say that when Parliament makes an amendment to the Constitution it assumes a different capacity, that of a constituent body. The learned Judge recalled that India had a written constitution, which created various organs at the Union and State levels and recognized certain rights as fundamental.

The judgments in Sajjan Singh's case were to provide the outlines of what was to become, and still is, a national debate on the method by which the Indian Constitution can be amended. As an Indian commentator has pointed out the doubts expressed by Hidayatullah and Mudholkar J. in Sajjan Singh's case about the correctness of the decision in Shankari Prasad's case were to be confirmed by the majority in the next case to be considered (Golak Nath's case). Golak Nath's case was itself to be overruled by a majority in the Keshvananda Bharti's case, this time in favour of Mudholkar J's view that certain features of the Constitution were basic and unalterable. The minority judges in Keshvananda's case were to return to the view of the court in Shankari Prasad's case and the majority in Sajjan Singh's case.

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: The doubts of the minority judges in Sajjan Singh's case as to the correctness of the decision in Shankari Prasad's case were raised before a bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court in this case, in which the validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution in so far as they affected fundamental rights was again challenged. The Fourth Amendment was also challenged. This time a majority of six judges to five decided that Parliament had no power to amend any of the provisions of Part III, so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights enshrined therein. The majority were, however, faced with the problem that, if the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments were at a late stage to be invalidated, the impact on social and economic affairs would be chaotic. On the other hand, the court considered that it had a duty to correct errors in the law. It, therefore, adopted a doctrine of prospective overruling under which the three constitutional amendments concerned would continue to be valid, and the decision to the effect that Parliament had no power to amend the provisions of Part III would operate for the future only.

To get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Golaknath's case the Constitution 24th Amendment Act was passed in 1971. The Twenty-fourth Amendment made these changes to articles 13 and 368:

1. A new clause was added to article 13: "(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368."

2. Amendments were made to article 368:

1. The article was given a new marginal heading: "Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefore."
2. A new clause was added as clause (I): "(I) 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.
3. Another clause was added as clause (3): "(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment under this article."

Another amendment to the old article 368 (now article 368(2)) made it obligatory rather than discretionary for the President to give his assent to any Bill duly passed under the article.

2.3 Basic structure of the Indian constitution

The Supreme Court recognized the basic structure concept for the first time in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. The court by majority overruled the Golak Nath case which denied parliament the power to amend fundamental rights of the citizens. The majority held that article 368 even before the 24th Amendment contained the power as well as the procedure of amendment. The Supreme Court declared that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and parliament could not use its amending powers under Article 368 to 'damage', 'weaken', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or framework of the constitution. This decision is not just a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law, but a turning point in constitutional history.

In Kesavananda case, there were differing opinions even among the majority for what the "basic structure" of the constitution comprised.

Chief Justice Sikri, writing for the majority, indicated that the basic structure consists of the following:

1. The supremacy of the constitution,
2. A republican and democratic form of government,
3. The secular character of the Constitution,
4. Maintenance of the separation of powers, and
5. The federal character of the Constitution.

Justices Shelat and Grover in their opinion added three features to the Chief Justice's list:

1. The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy,
2. Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India, and
3. The sovereignty of the country.

Justices Hegde and Mukherjea, in their opinion, provided a separate and shorter list:

1. The sovereignty of India,
2. The democratic character of the polity,
3. The unity of the country,
4. Essential features of individual freedoms, and 
5. The mandate to build a welfare state.

Justice Jaganmohan Reddy preferred to look at the preamble, stating that the basic features of the constitution were laid out by that part of the document, and thus could be represented by:

1. A sovereign democratic republic,
2. The provision of social, economic and political justice,
3. Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and 
4. Equality of status and opportunity.

Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala: It is a landmark of the Supreme Court of India, and is the basis in Indian law for the exercise by the Indian judiciary of the power to judicially review, and strike down, amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment also defined the extent to which the Indian Parliament could restrict the right to property, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan: Basic Structure concept reaffirmed in this case. The Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause (4) of article 329-A,which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution. The amendment was made to the jurisdiction of all courts including SC, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India.

Again, each judge expressed views about what amounts to the basic structure of the Constitution: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed four basic features which he considered unamendable:

1. Sovereign democratic republic status,
2. Equality of status and opportunity of an individual,
3. Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion, and 
4. 'Government of laws and not of men' i.e. the rule of law.

After the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshvanand Bharti and Indira Nehru Gandhi case, the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed which added two new clauses, namely, clause (4) and (5) to Art.368 of the Constitution. It declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal of the provisions of the Constitution under this Article. This Amendment would put an end to any controversy as to which is supreme, Parliament or the Supreme Court. Clause (4) asserted the supremacy of the parliament. It was urged that Parliament represents the will of the people and if people desire to amend the Constitution through Parliament there can be no limitation whatever on the exercise of this power. This amendment removed the limitation imposed on the amending power of the Parliament by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Keshvanand Bharti's case. It was said that the theory of 'basic structure' as invented by the Supreme Court is vague and will create difficulties. The amendment was intended to rectify this situation.

Minerva Mill v. Union of India: In this case the validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged on the ground that they are destructive of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The Supreme Court by majority by 4 to 1 struck down clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment, on the ground that these clauses destroyed the essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. It was ruled by court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. The historical Judgement laid down that:

“The amendment made to Art.31C by the 42nd Amendment is invalid because it damaged the essential features of the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) are invalid on the ground that they violate two basic features of the Constitution viz. limited nature of the power to amend and judicial review. The courts cannot be deprived of their power of judicial review. The procedure prescribed by Clause (2) is mandatory. If the amendment is passed without complying with the procedure it would be invalid. The judgment of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is Supreme not the Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution to which it owes its existence and also derives its power.”

2.4 Conclusion

Effect of Keshvanand Bharti case: Keshvanand case overruled the Golak Nath case but did not reestablish parliamentary supremacy. It stated that fundamental rights may be amended by the parliament, but not all of them. Those fundamental rights which constitute the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abridged. Golak Nath gave primacy to fundamental rights. Keshvanand recognizes that some other provisions in the Constitution may be equally important. If they form the basic structure they are unamendable. Under Art.368, the parliament cannot rewrite the entire Constitution and bring in a new one.

3.0 List of important amendments

In all there have been 124 attempts to amend the constitution out of which 103 have been successful. Even in the 103 that have been successful, the 99th Amendment (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hence the actual number of amendments as on January 2019 is 102. 

The first Amendment Act to the Indian Constitution was made in the year 1951. According to it, Articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 376 were amended and Articles 31A and 31B inserted, and the Ninth Schedule was added.

The Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951: Added special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. To fully secure the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws and to place reasonable restriction on freedom of speech. A new constitutional device, called Schedule 9 introduced to protect against laws that are contrary to the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. These laws encroach upon property rights, freedom of speech and equality before law. 

The Constitution (2nd Amendment) Act, 1953: Removed the upper population limit for a parliamentary constituency by amending Article 81(1)(b). 

The Constitution (3rd Amendment) Act, 1955: Re-enacted entry 33 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule with relation to include trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of 4 classes of essential commodities, viz., foodstuffs, including edible oil seeds and oils; cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; raw cotton whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seeds; and raw jute. 

The Constitution (4th Amendment) Act, 1955: Restrictions on property rights and inclusion of related bills in Schedule 9 of the constitution. 

The Constitution (5th Amendment) Act, 1955: Empowered the President to prescribe a time limit for a State Legislature to convey its views on proposed Central laws relating to the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States. Also permitted the President to extend the prescribed limit, and prohibited any such bill from being introduced in Parliament until after the expiry of the prescribed or extended period. 

The Constitution (6th Amendment) Act, 1956: Amend the Union and State Lists with respect to raising of taxes.

The Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956: Reorganization of states on linguistic lines, abolition of Class A, B, C, D states and introduction of Union Territories. 

The Constitution (8th Amendment) Act, 1960: Extended the period of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies till 1970. 

The Constitution (9th Amendment) Act, 1960: Minor adjustments to territory of Indian Union consequent to agreement with Pakistan for settlement of disputes by demarcation of border villages, etc. 

The Constitution (10th Amendment) Act, 1961: Incorporation of Dadra, Nagar and Haveli as a Union Territory, consequent to acquisition from Portugal. 

The Constitution (11th Amendment) Act, 1961: Election of Vice President by Electoral College consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament, instead of election by a Joint Sitting of Parliament. Indemnify the President and Vice President Election procedure from challenge on grounds of existence of any vacancies in the electoral college. 

The Constitution (12th Amendment) Act, 1961: Incorporation of Goa, Daman and Diu as a Union Territory, consequent to acquisition from Portugal. 

The Constitution (13th Amendment) Act, 1963: Formation of State of Nagaland, with special protection under Article 371A. 

The Constitution (14th Amendment) Act, 1962: Incorporation of Pondicherry into the Union of India and creation of Legislative Assemblies for Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur and Goa. 

The Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963: Raise retirement age of High court judges from 60 to 62 and other minor amendments for rationalizing interpretation of rules regarding judges etc.

The Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963: Make it obligatory for seekers of public office to swear their allegiance to the Indian Republic and prescribe the various obligtory templates. 

The Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964: To secure the constitutional validity of acquisition of Estates and place land acquisition laws in Schedule 9 of the constitution.

The Constitution (18th Amendment) Act, 1966: Technical Amendment to include Union Territories in Article 3 and hence permit reorganisation of Union Territories. 

The Constitution (19th Amendment) Act, 1966: Abolish Election Tribunals and enable trial of election petitions by regular High Courts. 

The Constitution (20th Amendment) Act, 1966: Indemnify & validate judgments, decrees, orders and sentences passed by judges and to validate the appointment, posting, promotion and transfer of judges barring a few who were not eligible for appointment under article 233. Amendment needed to overcome the effect of judgment invalidating appointments of certain judges in the state of Uttar Pradesh. 

The Constitution (21st Amendment) Act, 1967: Include Sindhi as an Official Language. 

The Constitution (22nd Amendment) Act, 1969: Provision to form Autonomous states within the State of Assam.

The Constitution (23rd Amendment) Act, 1970: Discontinued reservation of seats for the Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, both in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assembly and stipulated that not more than one Anglo-Indian could be nominated by the Governor to any State Legislative Assembly. Extend reservation for SC/ST and Anglo Indian members in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for another ten years, i.e. up to 1980. 

The Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971: It affirmed the power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. After this amendment, the President is bound to give his assent to Constitution Amendment Bill. Education was transferred to the Concurrent List by this amendment.

The Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1972: Restrict property rights and compensation in case the state takes over private property. However, the Supreme Court quashed a part of Article 31C, to the extent it took away the power of judicial review. This was done in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 which for the first time enunciated the Basic structure doctrine. 

The Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971: Abolition of privy purse paid to former rulers of princely states which were incorporated into the Indian Republic. 

The Constitution (27th Amendment) Act, 1972: Reorganization of Mizoram into a Union Territory with a legislature and council of ministers. 

The Constitution (28th Amendment) Act, 1972: Rationalize Civil Service rules to make it uniform across those appointed prior to Independence and post independence. 

The Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972: Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution. 

The Constitution (30th Amendment) Act, 1973: Change the basis for appeals in Supreme Court of India in case of Civil Suits from value criteria to one involving substantial question of law. 

The Constitution (31st Amendment) Act, 1973: It increased the elective strength of the Lok Sabha from 525 to 545. Under the Act, the upper limit of representatives of the States was increased from 500 to 525 and that of the Union Territories decreased from 25 to 20.

The Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1974: Protection of regional rights in Telangana and Andhra regions of State of Andhra Pradesh. 

The Constitution (33rd Amendment) Act, 1974: Prescribes procedure for resignation by members of parliament and state legislatures and the procedure for verification and acceptance of resignation by house speaker. 

The Constitution (34th Amendment) Act, 1974: Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution. 

The Constitution (35th Amendment) Act, 1975: Terms and Conditions for the Incorporation of Sikkim into the Union of India.  

The Constitution (36th Amendment) Act, 1975: By this Act, Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Indian Union.

The Constitution (37th Amendment) Act, 1975: By this amendment, a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers to Arunachal Pradesh, the country's north-easternmost Union Territory.’

The Constitution (38th Amendment) Act, 1975: Enhances the powers of President and Governors to pass ordinances. 

The Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975: This amendment places beyond challenge in courts the election to Parliament of a person holding the office of Prime Minister or Speaker and the election of President and Vice-President.

The Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976: This Amendment has a three-fold objective: (1) It places beyond challenge in courts some major Central laws; (2) It gives similar protection to several State enactments, mostly relating to land legislation, by including them in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution; and (3) It provides that the limits of the territorial waters, the Continental Shelf, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the maritime zones of India shall be specified from time to time by law made by Parliament.

The Constitution (41st Amendment) Act, 1976: Raise Retirement Age Limit of Chairmen and Members of Joint Public Service Commissions and State Public Service Commissions from sixty to sixty two. 

The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976: One of the most comprehensive amendments of the Indian constitution, it was enacted during the period of internal emergency. It was passed by Parliament on November 11, 1976 and received Presidential assent on December 18, 1976.

The 42nd Amendment established beyond doubt the supremacy of Parliament over the other wings of Government; gave the Directive Principles precedence over the Fundamental Rights; enumerated for the first time a set of ten Fundamental Duties. It further imposed limits on the power and jurisdiction of the judiciary; raised the term of the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabha from five to six years; authorised the use of Central armed forces in any State to deal with law and order problems, made the President bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers and envisaged the establishment of administrative tribunals for service matters of Government employees and also other tribunals for economic offences. The Act also clearly laid down that no Constitutional Amendment could be questioned in any court of law.

The Constitution (43rd Amendment) Act, 1978: It received the Presidential assent on April 13, 1978. This Act repeals the provisions of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act passed during the Emergency. It restores civil liberties by deleting Article 31D which gave powers to Parliament to curtail even legitimate trade union activity under the guise of legislation for the prevention of anti-national activities. 

The new law, which was ratified by more than half of the States in accordance with the Constitution, also restores legislative powers to the States to make appropriate provision for anti-national activities consistent with the Fundamental Rights. Under the Act, the judiciary has also been restored to its rightful place. The Supreme Court will now have power to invalidate State laws, a power taken away by the 42nd Amendment Act. The High Courts will also be able to go into the question of constitutional validity of Central laws thereby enabling persons living in distant places to obtain speedy justice without having to come to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978: The Constitution (45th Amendment) Bill, re-numbered as the 44th Amendment came into force on April 30, 1979, when the President gave his assent. The Act removes major distortions in the Constitution introduced during the Emergency. The duration of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are reduced from six to five years - the normal term which was extended during the Emergency under the 42nd Amendment to achieve some political purposes. The Right to Property was removed as a  Fundamental Right and became only a legal right according to the Constitution 44th Amendment. 

The Act also extends, for the first time since independence, constitutional protection for publication of the proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures, except in cases where it is proved to be "malicious". Another important feature of the Act is that any proclamation of Emergency need henceforward, be issued by the President only after receiving the advice of the Cabinet as a whole in writing. The President will not be called upon to act on the basis of advice by the Prime Minister on his/her own without consulting his Cabinet. Other safeguards provide that the proclamation will have to be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of both Houses of Parliament within a month. The 44th Amendment provides safeguards against future subversion of the Constitution for establishing an authoritarian regime. It contains provisions which are designed to make it impossible to impose the kind of emergency the country had experienced. 

(The Indian Emergency from 26 June 1975 – 21 March 1977 was a 21-month period, when President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, upon request by PM Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution of India, suspending elections and civil liberties. It is one of the most controversial times in the history of independent India.)

The Constitution (45th Amendment) Act, 1980: The Act extends reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and the State Assemblies and the representation of Anglo-Indians by nomination for a further period of 10 years.

The Constitution (46th Amendment) Bill, 1982: It seeks to authorise the government to prepare an authoritative text of the Constitution, in Hindi.

The Constitution (47th Amendment) Bill, 1984: Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution. 

The Constitution (48th Amendment) Bill, 1984: Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to two years in the state of Punjab. 

The Constitution (49th Amendment) Bill, 1984: Recognize Tripura as a Tribal State and enable the creation of a Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council. 

The Constitution (50th Amendment) Bill, 1984: Technical Amendment to curtailment of Fundamental Rights as per Part III as prescribed in Article 33 to cover Security Personnel protecting property and communication infrastructure.

The Constitution (51st Amendment) Bill, 1984: Provide reservation to Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh in Loksabha, similarly for Meghalaya and Arunachal in their Legislative Assemblies. 

The Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985: The Act has made defection to another party, after elections illegal. Any member defecting to another party after elections will be disqualified from being Member of Parliament or State Legislature.

The Constitution (53rd Amendment) Act, 1986: It confers Statehood on Mizoram and ensures against unnecessary interference by the Central Government with the laws relating to spheres of social relationship and community conduct applicable to Mizoram.

The Constitution (54th Amendment) Act, 1986: It enhances the salaries of Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court of India. The salary of Chief Justice of India will be Rs 10,000; Chief Justice of High Courts Rs 9000; Judges of Supreme Court Rs 9000; and Judges of High Courts Rs 8000.

The Constitution (55th Amendment) Act, 1987: It grants Statehood to Arunachal Pradesh which consequently became the 24th State of the Indian Union.

The Constitution (56th Amendment) Act, 1987: It confers Statehood on Goa and forms a new Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Goa thus became the 25th State of the Indian Republic.

The Constitution (57th Amendment) Act, 1987: It made a special provision for the setting up of the new State of Goa. Consequently Daman and Diu were separated from the former to form a Union Territory.

The Constitution (58th Amendment) Act, 1988: It provides for special arrangements with regard to reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya. By amending Article 322 the adjustment of seats has been frozen until 2000 A.D.

The Constitution (59th Amendment) Act, 1988: It empowered the Central Government to impose Emergency in Punjab when deemed necessary. Under the amendment, President's rule can be extended upto three years. Earlier maximum period was two years.

The Constitution (60th Amendment) Act, 1988: Profession Tax increased from a minimum of Rs. 250/- to a maximum of Rs. 2500/-. 

The Constitution (61st Amendment) Act, 1989: It lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Constitution (62nd Amendment) Act, 1989: It provided for the extension by another 10 years of reservation of seats in the Parliament and State Assemblies for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and reservation for Anglo Indian community by nomination.

The Constitution (63rd Amendment) Act, 1989: It repealed Amendment 59 which empowered the government to impose emergency in Punjab.

The Constitution (64th Amendment) Act, 1990: It extended the President's rule in Punjab by six months.

The Constitution (65th Amendment) Act, 1990: National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes formed and its statutory powers specified in The Constitution. 

The Constitution (66th Amendment) Act, 1990: To bring land reforms within the purview of 9th Schedule of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution (67th Amendment) Act, 1990: Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to four years in the state of Punjab. 

The Constitution (68th Amendment) Act, 1991: Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to five years in the state of Punjab. 

The Constitution (69th Amendment) Act, 1991: Delhi made National Capital Region. The Act also made provision for Legislative assembly and a council of ministers for Delhi.

 

The Constitution (70th Amendment) Act, 1992: Before this act was made Article 54 relating to the election of the President provided for an electoral college consisting only of the elected members of Parliament as well as the legislative assemblies of the States (not of Union Territories). The amendment provide for inclusion of members of legislature of Pondicherry and Delhi.

 

The Constitution (71st Amendment) Act, 1992: The act amends the 8th Schedule to the Constitution to include Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali Languages in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution.

The Constitution (72nd Amendment) Act, 1992: This Act makes a temporary provision for the determination of the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the State assembly of Tripura, until the re-adjustment of seats is made on the basis of the first census after the year 2000 under article 170 of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992: Ensures direct election to all seats in Panchayats; to reserve seats for SCs and STs in proportion to their population; and for reservation of not less than one third of the seats in Panchayats for women.

 

The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992: was made to ensure direct election to all seats in Nagarpalikas and Municipalities.

 

The Constitution (75th Amendment) Act 1994: It provides for setting up of State-level Rent Tribunals to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution (76th Amendment) Act, 1994: It relates to the Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutes and of appointments or posts in the Services under a State, for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court had ruled on November 16, 1992, that the total reservations under Article 16(40) of the Constitution should not exceed 50 per cent.

The Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995: According to this Act, the Government have decided to continue the existing policy of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

 

The Constitution (78th Amendment) Act, 1995: It includes land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule so that they cannot be challenged before the courts.

 

The Constitution (79th Amendment) Act, 1999: It extends the reservation of seats for SC, ST and Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies for next 10 years.

 

The Constitution (80th Amendment) Act, 2000: It deals with an alternative scheme for sharing taxes between the Union and the States.

The Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000: It provides that the unfilled vacancies of a year reserved for SC/ST kept for being filled up in a year as per Article 16, shall be considered separately for filling vacancies in the succeeding year and the previous list will not be considered for filling the 50% quota of the respective year.

 

The Constitution (82nd Amendment) Act, 2000: It provides that nothing in the Article 355 shall prevent the State from making any provisions in favour of the members of SC/ST for relaxation in qualifying marks with respect to examination/job/promotion.

The Constitution (83rd Amendment) Act, 2000: The Act amended Article 243 M to provide that no reservation in Panchayats be made in favour of SC/ST in Arunachal Pradesh where the whole population is tribal.

The Constitution (84th Amendment) Act, 2000: Related to making of recent States of Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh and Uttaranchal.

The Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2002: A technical amendment to protect Consequential seniority in case of promotions of SC/ST Employees. 

The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002: Provided for insertion of a brand new article 21A that the State shall offer free and obligatory education to any or all kids of the age of six to 14 years in such manner because the state might, by law, determine.

The Constitution (87th Amendment) Act, 2003: Extend the usage of 2001 national census population figures for statewise distribution of parliamentary seats. 

The Constitution (88th Amendment) Act, 2004: To extend statutory cover for levy and utilization of Service Tax. 

The Constitution (89th Amendment) Act, 2003: This amendement provided for the change of Article 338 and insertion of a brand new article 338A that provides that there shall be a National Commission for ST.

The Constitution (90th Amendment) Act, 2003: Reservation in Assam Assembly relating to Bodoland Territory Area. 

The Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003: Restricted the size of council of ministers to 15% of legislative members and strengthened the Anti-Defection Laws.

The Constitution (92nd Amendment) Act, 2004: Include Bodo, Dogri, Santali and Maithali as official languages. 

The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005: Amended Article 15 of the Constitution to enable provision of reservation(27%) for other backward classes (O.B.C.) in government as well as private educational institutions.

The Constitution (94th Amendment) Act, 2006: To provide for a Minister of Tribal Welfare in newly created Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh States including Madhya Pradesh, Orissa. 

The Constitution (95th Amendment) Act, 2009: Extended the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and states assemblies from Sixty years to Seventy years.

The Constitution (96th Amendment) Act, 2011: Substituted Odia for Oriya.

The Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2012: Added the words "or co-operative societies" after the word "or unions" in Article 19(l)(c) and inserted article 43B related to promotion of co-operative societies and added Part-IXB that is The Co-operative Societies.

The Constitution (98th Amendment) Act, 2013: To empower the Governor of Karnataka to take steps to develop the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region.

The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014: The amendment provides for the formation of a National Judicial Appointments Commission. This amendment however has been struck down by the Supreme Court of India. 

The Constitution (100th Amendment) Act, 2015: Exchange of certain enclave territories with Bangladesh and conferment of citizenship rights to residents of enclaves consequent to signing of Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) Treaty between India and Bangladesh.

The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2017: Introduced the Goods and Services Tax. 

The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018: Constitutional status to National Commission for Backward Classes.

The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2019: 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Section.

Join PT courses | PT Youtube | PT App | Contribute |  Testimonials