case study on article 368

Win up to 100% Scholarship

UPSC Online
UPSC offline and Hybrid
UPSC Optional Coaching
UPPCS Online
BPSC Online
MPSC Online
MPPSC Online
WBPSC Online
OPSC Online
UPPCS Offline Coaching
BPSC Offline Coaching
UPSC Test Series
State PSC Test Series
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS
SUBJECT WISE CURRENT AFFAIRS
DAILY EDITORIAL ANALYSIS
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ
Daily Prelims(MCQs) Practice
Daily Mains Answer Writing
Free Resources

Offline Centers
NCERT Notes
UDAAN Notes
UPSC Syllabus
UPSC Prelims PYQs
UPSC Mains PYQs
Prelims Preparation

Article 368’s Role and the Constitutional Amendment Procedure

Introduction

The procedure for amending the Constitution of India , outlined in Part XX under Article 368 , serves as a crucial mechanism for adapting the supreme law of the land to changing societal needs and circumstances. This procedure delineates the steps and requirements necessary for altering various provisions of the Constitution, ensuring that amendments are deliberated upon carefully and reflect the collective will of the people and their representatives.

Amendment of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Basic Structure

It is the synthesis of both.
Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973: It states that Parliament may amend the Constitution but can’t amend those provisions which form the basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 368 has been amended by the 24th and 42nd Amendments in 1971 and 1976, respectively.
Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation’s fundamental law or supreme law .

Procedure for the Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368)

Introduction of Bills: A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced only in either house of Parliament . [UPSC 2013]
Introduced by: Either by a minister or private member.
No Prior Approval: Prior permission of the President is not required to introduce the bill. [UPSC 2022]
Both houses need to pass the bill with a special majority separately.
No Joint Sitting: There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses.
Role of State Government: While Amending federal provisions , Special majority + ratification by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority.
The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent , when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him. [UPSC 2022]
Limitations on Veto Power: He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration by the Parliament.
After the president’s assent , the bill becomes an Act, and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.

Types of Constitutional Amendments

Article 368 provides for two types of amendments by a special majority of Parliament and also through the ratification of half of the states .
However these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament (Do not come under article Under Article 368)
Amendment by special majority of the Parliament (Under 368)
Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half of the state legislatures.(Under 368)

Supreme Court ( Final Interpreter & Guardian of the Constitution)

SC is the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and also the guarantor of the fundamental right s of the citizens.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
SC laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
Therefore, any constitutional amendment that is ultra vires or goes against the ‘basic structure’ of the Indian Constitution can be nullified by the SC.

Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

States have only one way to propose the amendment i.e. create the legislative council in the state.
No Time Limit for States: The Constitution does not mention the time within which state legislatures ratify or reject the amendment .
Silent on Withdrawal of States: The Constitution is also silent on whether the states can withdraw their approval once given.
Absence of Special Amendment Body: No provision for a special body for amendment + Only in a few cases, the consent of the state legislatures is required.
No Joint Sitting: No provision for holding a joint sitting .
Expansive Judicial Review Potential: Wide scope for taking matters to the judiciary due to vague provisions.
Amendment to the Constitution typically involves multiple stages of consideration , debate, and approval to ensure that proposed changes reflect the will of the people and have broad support across different segments of society.
By requiring significant levels of consensus, the process helps safeguard the integrity and stability of the constitutional framework while allowing for necessary adaptations over time.
Overall, the amendment procedure serves as a crucial mechanism for ensuring the relevance and responsiveness of the Constitution to evolving societal needs and values.

UPDATED :

Recommended For You

Latest comments, recent posts.

Eastern Ganga Kingdom: Power, Conquests and C...

Marco polo (1254-1324): india’s coroman..., hiuen tsang’s journey: india during the har..., megasthenes: geography, society and governanc..., insights into mughal empire: françois bernie....

THE MOST LEARNING PLATFORM

Learn From India's Best Faculty

Our Courses

Our initiatives, beginner’s roadmap, quick links.

PW-Only IAS came together specifically to carry their individual visions in a mission mode. Infusing affordability with quality and building a team where maximum members represent their experiences of Mains and Interview Stage and hence, their reliability to better understand and solve student issues.

Subscribe our Newsletter

Sign up now for our exclusive newsletter and be the first to know about our latest Initiatives, Quality Content, and much more.

Contact Details

G-Floor,4-B Pusha Road, New Delhi, 110060

+91 9920613613
[email protected]

Download Our App

Biginner's roadmap, suscribe now form, fill the required details to get early access of quality content..

Join Us Now

(Promise! We Will Not Spam You.)

CURRENT AF.

Select centre Online Mode Hybrid Mode PWonlyIAS Delhi (ORN) PWonlyIAS Delhi (MN) PWonlyIAS Lucknow PWonlyIAS Patna Other

Select course UPSC Online PSC ONline UPSC + PSC ONLINE UPSC Offline PSC Offline UPSC+PSC Offline UPSC Hybrid PSC Hybrid UPSC+PSC Hybrid Other

</div>

Call for Papers
Essay Writing
Lex Articles
Internship Experience
Internship Opportunities
Career Advice
Career Opportunities
Classroom Courses
Distance Courses
Online Courses
International Events

Anti-Defection Law: Analysis of Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412

Introduction

Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillhu and Others alluded as the case where the constitution bench of the Supreme Court anatomized in detail the different provisions of the 52nd amendment of the constitution which embedded a new schedule expounding different provisions to shield the parties from surrender and defection. In 1985, the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 which is also capitally convoked as the Anti-Defection Law came into command. The amendment occurred in the year 1985 and followed by much commotion which at last prompted filing a PIL and culminating into the verdict in the year 1992 proclaiming the amendment legitimate with certain understanding in regards to judicial review.

The Anti-Defection Law

The background of the Kitoho Hollohan case can be traced back to the affected functioning of the legislature, introduction of new jargon of Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram syndrome in political parlance and 1967 elections in which Congress lost in the majority. Thus, there were large scale defections. The anti-defection law brought up numerous issues, for example, regardless of whether the law encroaches upon the privileges of the free discourse of the Members of parliament or individuals from the state legislature. Another unmistakable inquiries raised should the law just be substantial for those democratic circumstances of voting which decide the dependability of the legislature, (for example, demonstrating certainty in the wake of shaping the administration or no-certainty movement), should the last judgment on absconding is to made by the directing official, and so on.

In short, a member from the parliament will be considered incompetent if he either intentionally leaves his party or defies the orders of the party supervision on any circumstance which includes casting votes. The party members are therefore kept from casting a vote against the regulation given by the party’s whip. The stint of whip incorporates guaranteeing the participation of party individuals and teaches them to decide in favor of the party at whatever point the circumstance emerges.

In this case, numerous petitions were perceived simultaneously. So, the 10th schedule was embedded by the Constitution (52 nd Amendment) Act, 1985. The consolidated petition was planned to question and defy the Constitutional legitimacy of the Schedule presented by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985. These cases were reported amidst a cluster of Writ Petitions, Transfer Petitions, Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions and other comparable and associated cases bringing up basic issues that were perceived simultaneously.

Four articles were changed by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act that are 101(3)(a), 102(2), 190(3)(a) and 191(2). The common question was raised as to the constitutional validity of the constitution (52 nd Amendment) Act, 1958 as introduced in the 10 th Schedule [1] in the Indian Constitution.

“Hon’ble Justice Venkata Chaliah said that in such areas of experimental legislation what is constitutionally valid and what is constitutionally invalid is marked by a ‘hazy grey line’ and thus there is no litmus test of constitutionality. The majority proceeded to rule for the Constitutional legitimacy saying that the Constitution is adaptable to accommodate the impulses of the evolving times, that the freedom of speech of a member isn’t an outright opportunity and that the political party works on the quality of shared convictions.” [2]

It was held that the 10 th schedule does not impinge upon freedom of speech and expression or undermines the autonomous rights of the elected members and is constitutionally valid. The provision is valid regardless; the High Courts and the Supreme Court can perturb and take into consideration the judicial review under the Indian constitution. But it should not overlie any position erstwhile to give rise to a determination by the speaker.

Case Analysis

The law which has to prevail with regards to forestalling individuals defections should likewise forestall mass defections. The impersonation of the speaker likewise must be brought being referred to. The speaker relies upon the majority in the lawmaking body for his tenancy.

The Judgment in Kihoto Hollohon versus Zachillhu and Others (1992) responds to a few of the inquiries and concerns with respect to this law. While maintaining the constitutional legitimacy of this amendment, the court saw that this new law on defection tries to perceive the pragmatic need to put the decencies of political and individual lead over certain hypothetical presumptions. The court at last held that the law doesn’t abuse any privileges of free discourse or fundamental structure of the parliamentary popular government. Another significant part of this judgment is an ultimate conclusion making expert on pronouncing the absconding. The court clarified that the managing official is the one to settle on the choice and it is last dependent upon legal audit after the choice is articulated and affected.

“In Ravi S Naik v. Union of India , it was held that the words “deliberately surrendering membership” has more extensive importance. A derivation can likewise be drawn from the regulation of the member that he has deliberately surrendered the membership of his party. Rules under the Tenth Schedule are procedural. Any infringement of those eventually is a procedural inconsistency. Procedural inconsistency is safe from the legal examination.” [3]

Taking into account Articles 102 and 192, the president, if there should be an occurrence of the parliament and the representative on account of the state assembly, may allude the issue to the Election Commission. This is by all accounts the best way to stay away from the politically roused affirmations of the speakers. If the government needs to proceed with the current framework, at that point the Supreme Court needs to expect a lot more extensive force.

The significant disagreement raised by the petitioners was that para 7 in wording and in actuality realizes an adjustment in the functioning and impact of Articles 136, 226 and 227 thus drawing in The clause (2) of the Article 368 demanding sanction. “The court subscribing in to it has opined that the expressions of the para 7 are of wide import and leave no constitutional choices. The para 7 undertakes to change the impact of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution which gives the High Courts and Supreme Court jurisdiction in such cases.” [4] Any such rule or regulation is required to be legally sanctioned and compiled by the state legislature bodies according to Article 368(2).

“In Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors. v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors., it was held that if the Speaker neglects to follow up on a complaint, or acknowledges claims of splits or mergers without making a declaration, he neglects to go according to the Tenth Schedule. The Court said that overlooking a petition for exclusion and disqualification is not only an inconsistency yet an infringement of established constitutional duties and obligations .” [5]

The Anti-defection law altered different articles of the constitution concerning vacation of the seats and preclusion from membership of the parliament and lawmaking bodies. The amendment likewise embedded another schedule (tenth schedule) to the constitution setting out different arrangements enumerating preclusion on the ground of defection. The law provides strength and solidity to the government by thwarting the movement of party allegiance. By way of interdicting the parliamentarians from changing parties, it reduces the culpability of the government to the Parliament and the citizens. It also safeguards that candidates elected with party countenance and based on party manifestoes remain dedicated to the party policies and also commend party decorum.

[1] The Constitution of India, art. 102(2), 191(2)

[2] Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors , AIR 1993 SC 412.

[3] AIR 1994 SC 1558

[4] The Constitution (fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, para 7

[5] (2007) 4 SCC 270

Pingback: Neccesity to Evolve Anti-Defection Law in India | LawLex.Org

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free!

Constitution of India

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, 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

(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 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 304, Draft Constitution of Indian 1948

(1) An amendment of the Constitution may be initiated 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 for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill, 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) Any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule;

(b) The representation of States in Parliament; or

(c) The powers of the Supreme Court. the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule and the Legislatures of not less than one-third of the States for the time being specified in Part III of that Schedule.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding clause, an amendment of the Constitution seeking to make any change in the provisions of this Constitution relating to the method of choosing a Governor or the number of Houses of the Legislature in any State for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule may be initiated by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in the Legislative Assembly of the State or, where the State has a Legislative Council, in either House of the Legislature of the State, and when the Bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly or, where the State has a Legislative Council, by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly or each House, as the case may be, it shall be submitted to Parliament for ratification, and when it is ratified by each House of Parliament by a majority of the total membership of that House it shall be presented to the President for assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill.

Explanation. -Where a group of States is for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule, the entire group shall be deemed to be a single State for the purposes of the proviso to clause (1) of this article.

Article 365, Constitution of India 1950

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 for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill, 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 or article 241, or

(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or

(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or

the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent.

Draft Article 304 was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 17 September 1949 . It granted the exclusive power to amend the Constitution to Parliament and outlined the procedure for exercising this power. According to the Draft Article, an amendment required the approval of a two-thirds majority in Parliament and, in some cases, the consent of half of India’s states.

During the debate, the Drafting Committee Chairman moved an amendment that tightened the language of the Draft Article and increased the number of Articles requiring the consent of India’s states for their amendment.

Most Assembly members who participated in the debate opposed the two-thirds majority requirement and favoured a “simple majority.” They believed that the Draft Article made it difficult, if not impossible, to amend the Constitution. These members presented various reasons why a rigid Constitution was not desirable. They argued that a rigid Constitution would hinder progressive legislation, limit the Constitution’s ability to adapt to social and political uncertainties, and was not justified given the Constituent Assembly’s modest representative credentials.

There was also a concern that the involvement of States in the amendment process would weaken the supremacy of the Union Parliament and impede future attempts to modify India’s federal structure if Parliament wished to do so.

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee responded by reminding members that other Draft Articles provided for amendments by a simple majority and that Draft Article 304 concerned a special category of articles requiring a higher threshold for amendment. He cited the amendment provisions of Ireland , Switzerland , Australia , and the United States to demonstrate that no major Constitution in the world allowed all parts of the Constitution to be amended by a simple majority. He also reiterated that the involvement of States in the amendment process was necessary to protect their interests.

In the end, only the Chairman of the Drafting Committee’s amendment was accepted by the Assembly.

Originally titled “Procedure for the Amendment of the Constitution” in the Constitution of India 1050, this Article was later renamed after the Supreme Court’s Golaknath case of 1967 , which limited Parliament’s authority to amend Fundamental Rights. In response, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act in 1971 , which added two clauses to bring Fundamental Rights under Parliament’s amending power. In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973 , the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, the court also established the doctrine that Parliament could not amend the basic structure of the Constitution.

भाषा : हिंदी
Classroom Courses
Our Selections
Student Login
About NEXT IAS
Director’s Desk
Advisory Panel
Faculty Panel
General Studies Courses
Optional Courses
Interview Guidance Program
Postal Courses
Test Series
Current Affairs
Student Portal

Pre Cum Mains Foundation Courses
GS + CSAT Pre cum Main Foundation Course
GS Pre cum Main Foundation Course
GS + CSAT + Optional
GS + Optional
Prelims Courses
Current Affairs Course for CSE 2025
CSAT Course
Current Affairs for Prelims (CAP)-2024
Mains Courses
Mains Advance Course (MAC)
Essay Course Cum Test Series
First Step — NCERT Based Course
Optional Foundation Courses
Mathematics
Anthropology
Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
Optional Advance Courses (Optional Through Questions)
Civil Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Interview Guidance Programme / Personality Test Training Program
GS + CSAT Postal Courses
Current Affairs Magazine – Annual Subscription
GS+CSAT Postal Study Course
First Step Postal Course
Postal Study Course for Optional Subjects
Prelims Test Series for CSE 2024 (Offline/Online)
General Studies
GS Mains Test Series for CSE 2024
Mains Test Series (Optional)
Paarth PSIR
PSIR Answer Writing Program
PSIR PRO Plus Test Series
Mathematics Year Long Test Series (MYTS) 2024
Indian Economic Services
Anubhav (All India Open Mock Test)
Prelims (GS + CSAT)
Headlines of the Day
Daily Current Affairs
Editorial Analysis
Monthly MCQ Compilation
Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
Previous Year Papers
Down to Earth
Kurukshetra
Union Budget
Economic Survey
NIOS Study Material
Beyond Classroom

Amendment of the Constitution: Meaning, Types, Procedure & Limitations

The Constitution of India , as the supreme law of the land , should be responsive to changing needs and situations. The provision for amendment of the Constitution of India under Article 368 accommodates this requirement. This article of Next IAS aims to explain the meaning of the amendment of the Constitution, its procedure, types, significance, limitations, and more.

Meaning of the Amendment of the Constitution

The Amendment of the Constitution refers to the process of making changes such as the addition, variation, or repeal of any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose. The purpose of Constitutional Amendments is to ensure that the Constitution remains a living document capable of adapting to changing circumstances while upholding its fundamental principles and values.

Provisions of Amendment of Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution, being a living document, provides for its amendment. The detailed provisions regarding the Amendment of the Constitution of India are contained in Article 368 in Part XX of the Indian Constitution . These provisions define the process and scope of amending the Constitution.

Various aspects of the Amendment of the Constitution of India are dealt with in detail in the sections that follow.

Procedure for Amendment to the Indian Constitution

A bill for the amendment of the Constitution can be introduced only in either house of the Parliament, not in the State Legislatures.
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior permission of the President.
The bill must be passed in each House by a Special Majority , that is, a majority (more than 50 percent) of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a Simple Majority , that is, a majority of the members of the House present and voting.
After duly passed by both Houses of Parliament and ratified by the State Legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the President for his/her assent.
The President must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration by the Parliament.
After the President’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e. a Constitutional Amendment Act) , and the Constitution stands amended as per the changes made by the Act.

Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution

By a Special Majority of Parliament (50% of the total membership of the House + 2/3rd of the members present and voting),
By a Special Majority of Parliament plus ratification of 1/2 of the states by a Simple Majority,
However, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments for the purpose of Article 368.
Amendment by a simple majority of the Parliament,
Amendment by a special majority of the Parliament, and
Amendment by a special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half of the State Legislatur es.
The process and scope of each type of amendment are discussed in detail below.

By Simple Majority of Parliament

Several provisions in the Indian Constitution can be amended by a Simple Majority i.e. 50 percent of members present and voting.
It is to be noted that these amendments fall outside the scope of Article 368.
Admission or establishment of new states,
Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states,
Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in states, etc.

By Special Majority of Parliament

The majority of the provisions in the Constitution can be amended only by a Special Majority (more than 50 percent of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting).
Fundamental Rights,
Directive Principles of State Policy,
All other provisions that are not covered by the first and third categories.

By Special Majority of the Parliament and Consent of Half States

The provisions of the Constitution that are related to the federal structure of the Indian polity require for their amendment a Special Majority of the Parliament along with the consent of half of the state legislatures by a Simple Majority.
It does not require that all the states give their consent to the bill. The moment half of the states give their consent, the formality is completed and the bill is passed.
The constitution has not prescribed any time limit within which the states should give their consent to the bill.
Election of the President and its manner,
Extent of the executive power of the Union and the States,
Provisions related to the Supreme Court and High courts, etc.

Basic Structure of the Constitution

The Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution refers to a set of core principles deemed essential, which cannot be destroyed or altered through amendments by the Parliament. This concept, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a check on the amending power of the Parliament and ensures that the fundamental ethos, principles, and the underlying framework of the Constitution remain intact, preserving its spirit.

Significance of the Constitutional Amendment

The provision for amendment of the Indian Constitution carries multifarious significance as listed below:

Adaptability in Governance : The Constitution lays down fundamental principles of governance. A diverse and constantly evolving country like India cannot be governed by a set of fixed rules. The amendment of the constitution enables to bring changes in governance as per needs and situations.
Accommodating New Rights : With rising awareness, various sections of society are becoming assertive of their rights . For example, of late, the LGBT community has been demanding their rights. The amendment enables providing for such rights.
Evolution of New Rights : New interpretations of the Constitution led to the evolution of new rights . For example, a new interpretation of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty gave rise to the Right to Privacy. The amendment enables accommodating such rights.
Addressing Emerging Issues : It enables addressing new emerging trends like bans, vigilantism, etc.
Bringing Social Reform : It enables the eradication of outdated socio-cultural practices to usher in modernity.

Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

The procedure for amendment of the Indian constitution has been criticized on the following grounds:

There is no provision for a special body for amending the Constitution such as the Constitutional Convention or Constitutional Assembly . The constituent power is vested in the Legislative Body itself i.e. the Parliament and the State Legislatures (in a few cases).
There is no provision for a special process for amending the Constitution. Except for the requirement of Special Majority, the process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process.
The power to initiate an amendment lies only with the Parliament. The states have no such powers (except for passing a resolution to create or abolish state legislative councils).
A major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone. Only in a few cases, the consent of the state legislatures is required, and that too, only half of them.
Lack of provision for holding a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament for a constitutional amendment bill, sometimes, leads to the situation of a deadlock.
The provisions relating to the amendment procedure, being too sketchy, leave a wide scope for creating disputes and taking the matters to the judiciary.

The process of amending the constitution is a crucial aspect of maintaining the relevance and adaptability of India’s legal framework to changing societal needs and circumstances. These constitutional amendments have played a significant role in shaping the country’s governance and legal framework. It ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, reflective of its people’s aspirations, challenges, and evolving societal values, ensuring its relevance and efficacy for generations to come.

Important Amendments in the Indian Constitution

Frequently asked questions (faqs), what is a constitutional amendment.

The Constitutional Amendment refers to the process of making changes such as the addition, variation, or repeal of any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.

Who has the power to amend the Constitution?

The Parliament alone has the power to amend the Constitution.

What is Simple Majority?

A Simple Majority refers to a majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting in the House.

What is Special Majority?

As per Article 368, Special Majority refers to the majority of 50% of the total strength of the House and a majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting in the House.

What is Absolute Majority?

Absolute Majority refers to the majority of more than 50% of the total membership of the House.

What is Effective Majority?

It refers to the majority of more than 50% of the effective strength of the house which does not include the vacant seats of the total strength of the House.

What is Article 368?

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the procedure for amending the Constitution of India.

Which part of the Constitution deals with amendment?

Article 368 of Part XX deals with the Amendment Procedure of the Indian Constitution.

Can Article 32 be amended?

Article 32 can be amended like any other provision of the Constitution without affecting the Basic Structure established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala Case (1973).

How many times was the Preamble of the Constitution amended?

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution has been amended only once so far.

What is the latest amendment in the Indian Constitution?

The latest amendment in the Indian Constitution was the 106th Amendment Act, passed in 2023. This amendment deals with women’s reservation in Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It reserves one-third of all seats for women, including those already reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Featured Post

NEXT IAS (Old Rajinder Nagar)

27-B, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar no. 118, Near Karol Bagh Metro, New Delhi-110060

NEXT IAS (Mukherjee Nagar)

1422, Main Mukherjee Nagar Road. Near Batra Cinema New Delhi-110009

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

Plot No. 46 Zone - 2 M.P Nagar Bhopal - 462011
8827664612 ,

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

NEXT IAS - Plot No - 6 & 7, 3rd Floor,Sree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Above Zudio Showroom Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001

Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Its Evolution, Features, Provisions & Criticism

Table of Contents

Article 368 of Indian Constitution

Article 368 of Indian Constitution explains how changes can be made to the constitution. It lays out the steps needed for these changes, like getting approval from parliament and the states. This article is important because it allows the constitution to be updated to reflect new ideas and needs while keeping its main values intact.

Original Text of Article 368 of Indian Constitution:

(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—

(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

(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 1*** 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.

Article 368 of Indian Constitution Explanation:

The power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is given in Article 368 of Indian Constitution in part XX . It provides that Parliament may alter any provision of this Constitution through addition, variation, or repeal in accordance with the process outlined in this article when exercising its constituent authority. However, this is subject to the ‘doctrine of basic structure’ introduced by the Supreme Court in the Kesavanand Bharti Case .

The procedure of the Amendment of the Constitution

The Constitution of India provides for a very distinctive process of amendment as compared to other leading countries of the world. It provides for a variety in the amendment process, a feature commended by KC where who describes the uniform procedures as “unnecessarily restrictive” .

Some provisions of the Constitution can be changed by a simple majority . However, they are not deemed to be an amendment for the purpose of Article 368 of Indian Constitution . (Type-1)
The Constitution provides for two types of amendments under Article 368 of Indian Constitution :
Those amendments require a special majority . (Type-2)
Those who require, in addition to a special majority , ratification by at least half of the state legislature . (Type-3).

By Simple Majority

It is similar to the ordinary legislative process . It requires a simple majority of Parliament, i.e. majority of members of each house present and voting in each of the houses.

The provision which can be amended by this procedure are:

Related to States:
Formation of new states, alteration of areas, boundaries and name of state.
Admission or establishment of new states.
Union territories
Related to Parliament
Salaries and emoluments of the members of Parliament.
Rules of procedure in Parliament.
Use of English language in the Parliament.
Privileges of Parliament, its members and committees.
Related to Supreme Court
Number of judges in the Supreme Court
Expansion of jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Related to Elections
Elections to Parliament and the state legislature.
Delimitation of Constituencies.
Related to Schedules of the Constitution
2 nd Schedule- emoluments, allowance and privileges of the President, the Governor, the speaker, judges etc.
5 th Schedule- administration of scheduled regions and scheduled tribes
6 th Schedule- administration of tribal regions.
Other Provisions
Use of official language
Citizenship

By Special Majority

The majority of the Constitutional provisions are required to be amended by a special majority, i.e. majority (50%) of the total membership of the house and 2/3 rd majority of members present and voting . Total membership means total members comprising the house, irrespective of any vacancies or absentees.

While the Constitution only mandates the requirement of a special majority at the time of voting in the third reading of the bill, rules of houses, as a precautionary measure, require a special majority at all stages of the bill.
The provisions can be amended through this provision.
Fundamental Rights
Directive Policy of State Policy
Other provisions which are not covered by Type-1 and Type-2.

By Special Majority and Ratification of States

Those provisions which have implications on the federal structure of the polity are required to be amended by a special majority along with ratification by at least ½ of the state legislature .

If the remaining states do not take any action, it will not change anything; the amendment will be applicable to them as well.
There is no time limit in which states have to give consent.
The following provisions can be amended this way:
Election of the President
The extent of executive powers of the state
Supreme Court and High Court
Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the state
Seventh Schedule
Representation of states in Parliament

Procedures under Article 368 of Indian Constitution

The Constitution has prescribed the following procedures under Article 368 of Indian Constitution :

A constitutional amendment can only be initiated by introducing it in either house of the Parliament.
The bill can be introduced by either a minister or any private member.
The introduction of the bill does not require prior permission of the President .
The introduced bill must be approved by each house by a majority of the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than 2/3 rd of the members of that house present and voting.
The bill seeking change in the federal provisions of the Constitution must also be ratified by half of the states by a simple majority, i.e. majority of members present and voting.
There is no provision for convening a joint sitting of both houses in the case of the Constitutional Amendment.
When the bill is so passed and ratified by states (if required), it must be presented to the President, who shall give his assent to the bill.
The President must give assent to the bill . He can neither withhold the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration. The 24 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 made it binding for the President to give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Act.
After President’s assent, the bill becomes an act.

List of Amendments in Article 368 of Indian Constitution:

For further reference:.

Read the constitution of India .
Read Amendment of the Indian Constitution .

FAQ’s Related to article 368 of Indian Constitution

Article 368 outlines how to amend the Constitution, specifying the process and requirements for making changes to the fundamental law of the land.

Yes, Article 368 is subject to judicial review, ensuring that any amendments made to the Constitution are in line with its basic structure and principles.

Article 368 requires a special majority for amendments, necessitating approval by a majority of the total membership of each House of Parliament and by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Yes, amendments made under Article 368 are considered laws under Article 13. However, any amendment that violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution is void to the extent of such contravention.

Certain basic features of the Constitution, known as the “basic structure,” cannot be amended under Article 368. These include democracy, secularism, federalism, and the separation of powers.

Our UPSC/IAS Coaching Institutes in India

Important upsc links.

UPSC Previous Year Question Papers
IAS Eligibility
NCERT Notes for UPSC

GS 1 Topper Notes

History Notes
Society Notes
Geography Notes

Our Authors

UPSC Courses

IAS Scholarship

UPSC Current Affairs

Daily Mains Answer Writing
Daily Facts

GS 2 Topper Notes

Polity Notes
Governance Notes
IR(International Relations) Notes

Indian Constitution

Article 1 of Indian Constitution
Article 2 of Indian Constitution
Article 3 of Indian Constitution
Article 4 of Indian Constitution

UPSC Syllabus Updated

Download UPSC Prelims Syllabus
Download UPSC Mains Syllabus
Download UPSC Optional Syllabus

GS 3 Topper Notes

Indian Economy Notes
Agriculture Notes
Science & Technology Notes
Environment Notes
Internal Security Notes

Best IAS Coaching in Delhi

Best IAS Coaching in Mukherjee Nagar
Best IAS Coaching in Faridabad
Best IAS Coaching in Gurgaon
Best IAS Coaching in Noida
Best IAS Coaching in Ghaziabad

Daily/Yearly Current Affairs

Forest Report

GS 4 Topper Notes

Attitude Notes
Aptitude For Civil Services Notes
Emotional Intelligence Notes
Civil Service Values Notes
Ethical Issues In International Relations Notes
Corporate Governance Notes
Probity In Governance Notes
Case Study On Above Issues Notes
[email protected]
011-61381450

Head Office :- Office No-2 & 3 ,LGF,Apsara Arcade,Adjacent Karol bagh Metro,Old Rajinder Nagar ,New Delhi-110060

2nd Office:- Metro station, 2nd floor, 5B, Pusa Rd, opp. to Metro Pillar no. 110, near Karol Bagh, Block B, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi 110005

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Your Full Name (required)

Your Email (required)

UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

Know more

SUGGESTIONS

Visual Try our Visuals feature which gives you an instant snapshot of the most relevant and landmark case laws.">

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

Judgments 1356

...structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. (4) The limits on the power to amend are implied in Article 368 , for...the expression “amend” has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as “repeal” and “re-enact” indicates that Article 368 only enables a...Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Article 368 to enable the...

...interpretation of the original Article 368 , as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the...conferred by Article 368 of the Constitution, apart from Article 13(2) on Parliament?11. The respondents claim that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom...Conrtitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368 .12. On the side of the...

...accordance with the proviso to sub- article (2) of Article 368 of the Constitution of India.[B] That there is nothing in the said proviso to Article 368 (2) which detracts...require such ratification. Having regard to the mandatory language of Article 368 (2) that “thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended” the operation of the proviso should not be extended to...to Article 368 (2) was not so ratified.[D] That paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule contains a provision which is independent of, and stands apart from, the main...

...unconstitutional. The provisional Parliament is competent to exercise the power of amending the Constitution under Art. 368 . The fact that the said article refers to the two Houses of the Par- liament...the provisional Parlia- ment to exercise the power conferred by the article . The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure provided by it and does not contem- plate..., 382,383, 388 and 392. Article 368 of the Constitution is a complete code in itself. It does not contemplate any amendments to the Bill 2...

...the amendment and of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, except for Paragraph 7 which was declared invalid for want of ratification in terms of and as required by the proviso to Article 368 (2) of the...amendment does not attract the proviso to Article 368 (2), then Paragraph 7 insofar as it takes away the power of judicial review, which, in itself, is one of the basic features of the Constitution, is..., the Bill introducing the amendment attracts the proviso to Article 368 (2) of the Constitution and would require to be ratified by the Legislature of the States before the Bill is presented for...

...Kesavananda Bharati (that “ Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution”) not only was there no further justification for making additions to...concerned. The Constitution without Part III is basically different from the Constitution of India, as conceived and promulgated. Article 368 does not confer constituent power on Parliament to make a...., SCR at pp. 966, 967 and 969 F. It was then authoritatively enunciated in Kesavananda, SCC at p. 1007 (“ Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic...

..., AIR 1973 SC 1461, this Court held by a majority that though by Article 368 Parliament is given the power to amend the Constitution, that power cannot be exer...amendment by necessary implication which was apparent from a reading of the preamble and therefore, according to the learned Chief Justice, the expression “amendment of this Constitution” in Article 368 means...which cannot be altered. The word “amendment” occurring in Article 368 must therefore be construed in such a manner as to preserve the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not so as...

...published in the gazette of India of 13th January 2012 and the amendment came into force on 15th February 2012. 2.1 According to the petitioner, the power under Article 368 of... Article 368 (2) of the Constitution, which recognizes the federal structure of the Constitution as one of the basic structures, has not been followed, is violative of the Constitution. The...requirements of Article 368 (2) of the Constitution. 3. This Court issued notices upon the parties including the learned Attorney General of India, and in...

...respondent are these: First, under Article 368 only general principles governing the organs of the State and the basic principles can be laid down. An amendment of the Constitution does not contemplate...any decision in respect of individual cases. Clause (4) of Article 329-A is said to be exercise of a purely judicial power which is not included in the constituent power conferred by Article 368 .17...power under Article 368 .(2) The Constitution Amendment Act was passed in a session of Parliament after some members of Parliament had been unconstitutionally...

...amount to an amendment of Article 19(6) of the Constitution for making which amendment a special procedure under Article 368 of the Constitution had been provided and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is...

...bench of the Gujarat High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2013 is whether Part IXB is non est for want of ratification by half of the States under the proviso to Article 368 (2). The...impugned judgment of the High Court has declared that the said constitutional amendment inserting Part IXB is ultra vires the Constitution of India for want of the requisite ratification under Article 368 (2...the State Legislatures under Article 368 (2) proviso.8. Shri K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for India, has submitted, relying upon the Statement of Objects...

...are complete in themselves workable and are not truncated by the excision of Paragraph 7. [p.712E-F] (ii) There is nothing in the proviso to Article 368 (2) which detracts from the...ratification. Having regard to the mandatory language of Article 368 (2) that "thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended" the operation of the proviso should not be extended to constitutional...Parliament cannot be over borne by the proviso to Article 368 (2) which cannot operate in that area. [712B-C] (iv) Paragraph 2 of the Tenth schedule to the constitution is valid. Its...

...individual, indeed its inalienability, and the importance of the economic, social and political justice mentioned in the Preamble, the importance of directive principles, the non-inclusion in Article 368 of... Article 368 of the Constitution, said the learned Judges: (Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) 4 SCC 225)“583. The entire discussion from the point...of view of the meaning of the expression ‘amendment’ as employed in Article 368 and the limitations which arise by implications leads to the result that the amending power under Article 368 is neither...

...the democratic pattern of participation by the States in the choice of the President and if a State were denied such a right, it would be undemocratic. Recourse was taken to Article 368 to show that...Articles 54 and 55 were mentioned in the proviso to Article 368 and if any amendment of Articles 54 and 55 was required consent of the States was necessary. It was, therefore, said by the interveners...that Articles 54 and 55 read with Article 368 would be a key to the interpretation of Article 62 that no election of the President could be held without the representation of elected members of...

...(1973) 4 SCC 225, 1973 Supp SCC 1.9. Article 368 of the Constitution reads thus:...clause (5) of Article 368 is ineffective to enlarge the Parliament's amending power so as to empower it to make amendments which will damage or destroy any of the basic features of the Constitution and...exercise of the power conferred by Article 368 , the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The seven learned Judges chose their...

...features of the Constitution have been held by this Court to be outside the procedure for amendment contained in Article 368 of the Constitution, it must, a fortiori, be held to be outside the legislative...adoption of the legislative procedure found in Part XI of the Constitution must have a result which can only be achieved by a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution. Fifthly...Constitution does not inhibit the growth or development of supplementary constitutional law through channels other than Article 368 .72. Excessive particularity is not consistent, as...

...).”38. The 44th Amendment Act received the assent of the President under Article 368 (2) on April 30, 1979. Most of the provisions of the 44th Amendment were brought into force with.... Alternatively, Dr Ghatate contends that clause (2) of Section 1 of the 44th Amendment is ultra vires the amending power conferred upon the Parliament by Article 368 of the Constitution. He argues: The...power to amend the Constitution is vested in the Parliament by Article 368 , which cannot be delegated to the executive. By such delegation, the Parliament has created a parallel constituent body which is...

... Article 368 of the Constitution.4. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that the Parliament in the exercise of its constituent power under Article 368 (1) may amend the Constitution by way of...addition, variation or repeal in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Article 368 . Section 58, according to Mr. Gupta does not add, vary or repeal the Article 226 and...proceedings in these two Rules.5. In my view, Clause (4) of Article 368 of the Constitution is a complete bar to the raising in this court the aforesaid question...

...(forty second amendment) act, 1976 is not valid because the section 58 seeks to override the article 226 of the constitution which is not permissible under article 368 of the constitution.... (4) Mr. Gupta has further submitted that the parliament in exercise of its constituent power under article 368 (1) may amend the constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal in...accordance with the procedure laid down in the article 368 . Section 58, according to mr. Gupta, does not add, vary or repeal the article 226 and there is a clear repugnancy...

...attention to different provisions of the Constitution, and in particular to proviso to Article 368 (2) which requires a ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States to a Bill...passed by the Parliament under Article 368 (1) in exercise of its constituent powers to amend the Constitution. It is urged that to concede to the Governor the power to participate in the process of...Legislatures under proviso to Article 368 (2) to a constitutional amendment by the Parliament under Article 368 (1), would create a dangerous situation and would be destructive of our constitutional...

Keyword Alert(s)

Create alert, update courts.

Supreme Court & High Court

Overruled By

Our algorithms sense that you may get better results by trying out the same excerpt in our CaseIQ interface.

IAS Preparation
UPSC Preparation Strategy
Types Of Amendment

Types of Amendments & Constitutional Amendment Process in India - Indian Polity

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution mentions two types of amendments to the Indian Constitution. One type of amendment is by a special majority of the Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha) and the second type of the amendment is the by a special majority of the Parliament with the ratification by half of the total states. The topic, ‘Types of Amendments’ comes under Indian Polity syllabus of the IAS Exam and this article will provide you with the details on it along with the Constitutional Amendment Process in India details.

Amendments of the Indian Constitution – What is Article 368?

To define constitutional amendment process, Article 368 of Part XX of Constitution of India provides for two types of amendments.

By a special majority of Parliament
By a special majority of the Parliament with the ratification by half of the total states

But, some other articles provide for the amendment of certain provisions of the Constitution by a simple majority of Parliament, that is, a majority of the members of each House present and voting (similar to the ordinary legislative process). Notably, these amendments are not deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.

Any of these amendments follow a certain procedure. Hence, this article will talk in detail about the types of amendments in the Indian Constitution, the Constitutional Amendment Process and the scope of amendability.

Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution

The list of types of amendments can be found below. There are three ways in which the Constitution can be amended:

Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament
Amendment by special majority of the Parliament
Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of at least half of the state legislatures.

Types of Amendments – Constitutional Amendment Process

The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down in Article 368 is as follows:

An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha ) and not in the state legislatures.
The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior permission of the president.
The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
Each House must pass the bill separately.
In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill.
If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and voting.
After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president for assent.
The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament
After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.

Questions from the topic ‘Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution’, have been asked frequently. Candidates preparing for UPSC 2023 must focus on such topics and prepare them according to the upcoming exam.

Scope of Amendability in Indian Constitution

The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify as to what constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

From the various judgements, the following have emerged as ‘ basic features’ of the Constitution :

Supremacy of the Constitution
Welfare state (socio-economic justice).
Principle of equality
Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity.
Judicial review
Free and fair elections
The secular character of the Constitution.
Freedom and dignity of the individual
Independence of Judiciary
Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Parliamentary system
Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
Federal character of the Constitution
Rule of law
Effective access to justice
Unity and integrity of the nation
Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Reasonableness

Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution-Indian Polity Notes:- Download PDF Here

Constitutional Amendment Process – Indian Polity Notes:- Download PDF Here

Check a few articles relevant to UPSC Political Science subject, given in the table below:

Relevant Links

Frequently Asked Questions related to Article 368

What is article 368, can fundamental rights be amended as per article 368, what does article 356 say, can article 32 be amended, can the preamble be amended under article 368.

UPSC Preparation:

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

We asked ChatGPT to be a juror in Donald Trump's hush-money trial. It said it would find him guilty.

The ongoing Donald Trump hush-money case will be decided by a jury of 12 New Yorkers.
We ran a trial transcript through AI chatbots and asked how they'd decide if they were jurors.
Both ChatGPT and Perplexity said they'd find the former president guilty. Here's their reasoning.

It will be a jury of 12 ordinary New Yorkers that will decide the fate of former President Donald Trump in his ongoing Manhattan hush-money trial .

Unless Trump decides to testify, the trial is nearly over. Michael Cohen, the trial's key witness , is scheduled to wrap up his testimony on Monday, and the judge told lawyers to prepare for closing arguments on Tuesday. Deliberations could begin as soon as Thursday.

Prosecutors have brought 34 felony counts of falsifying business records , alleging Trump illegally disguised hush-money payments paid to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. A guilty verdict comes with a sentence of up to four years, though experts expect the former president would see no jail time .

While legal and political pundits have been trying to figure out whether Trump will be found guilty — and what it will mean for the 2024 presidential election — we decided to get another perspective: that of AI chatbots.

Business Insider has compiled a 4,179-page trial transcript, combining PDFs of official daily transcripts purchased from the New York State Criminal Court's stenographer's office. The transcript incorporates all of the proceedings running through Thursday, including all of Cohen's direct examination and the bulk of his cross-examination. He's expected to wrap up his testimony Monday before Trump's lawyers put an expert witness on the stand.

Using that document, we asked various AI chatbots whether they found Trump guilty.

Gemini, ChatGPT , and Perplexity were prompted to imagine they were an ordinary Manhattan resident on the jury, responsible for evaluating the evidence in the trial. Each was asked to review the transcript and base their answer on the evidence and arguments presented. They were told to "choose now whether you would find him guilty or not guilty."

Gemini, Google's AI chatbot , said it "was still learning" how to answer the question.

But OpenAI's ChatGPT and Perplexity weighed in — and both said they'd find Trump guilty.

"I would vote guilty on the charges of falsifying business records," Perplexity responded definitively. "The prosecution has provided credible and significant evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in the alleged conduct."

ChatGPT initially hesitated to give a definitive answer, saying its decision "would depend heavily on the credibility of the witnesses and the clarity of the documentary evidence."

Watch: Trump dozes off at the start of his hush-money trial

Main content

Study links talc use to ovarian cancer — a potential boon for thousands suing J&J

New research published this week lends credence to the more than 50,000 lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson that allege its talc-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer.

The analysis , released Wednesday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that applying talc powder to the genitals was associated with ovarian cancer — and that the association was greater for people who used the powder frequently or for long periods of time.

The researchers are from the National Institutes of Health, and their findings were based on data from the Sister Study, which enrolled more than 50,000 women in the U.S. from 2003 to 2009. The participants joined when they were between 35 and 74 years old, and each had a sister who’d been diagnosed with breast cancer, which might put them at increased risk for breast or ovarian cancer.

Lawsuits related to J&J’s talc-based baby powder date back to 1999, when a woman alleged that a lifetime of using it led to her mesothelioma, a rare cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos — a known carcinogen. In 2009, another woman sued the company, alleging that its talc-based products caused her ovarian cancer. Since then, many thousands of others have filed claims over cases of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma that they say were caused by asbestos in J&J baby powder.

J&J has stood by the safety of its talc products and denies that they ever contained asbestos. The company has also argued that studies have not demonstrated a convincing link between ovarian cancer and talc-based products.

The new research could undermine that line of reasoning as the legal battles continue. Most of the lawsuits against J&J have been consolidated into a single federal case in New Jersey, with trial scheduled for December.

“This study is quite timely. We feel like it completely affirms and confirms the position taken by plaintiffs’ experts,” said Leigh O’Dell, a principal at Beasley Allen Law Firm. O’Dell is the co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs’ steering committee, a group of attorneys appointed to act on behalf of the many people with pending cases against J&J.

However, Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said the new analysis doesn’t establish causality or implicate a specific cancer-inducing agent.

“This study does not change the overwhelming evidence that talcum powder does not cause ovarian cancer,” he said.

Earlier this month, J&J proposed a payment of around $6.48 billion to resolve the lawsuits, but the deal would involve moving the cases to bankruptcy court and require 75% of claimants to vote in favor.

J&J has tried and failed twice to resolve talc lawsuits in bankruptcy court . The company created a subsidiary in 2021 that could assume liability for talc-related legal claims — a legal maneuver known as a Texas two-step. But thus far, courts have dismissed the bankruptcy filings on the grounds that the subsidiary is not in financial distress.

O’Dell said her team “would like to see these women offered a reasonable and fair resolution outside of bankruptcy.”

“Any effort to file another bankruptcy, we believe, is just yet another abuse of the bankruptcy system,” she said.

The potential harms of talc products

The new study asked women how often they used talc powder on their genitals from ages 10 to 13 and during the year before they enrolled in the study. NIH researchers followed up with surveys from 2017 to 2019 that asked women about their lifetime use of talc powder.

Based on the responses, the researchers estimated that up to 56% of the women used talc powder on their genitals at some point. These women were more likely to be Black, less educated and live in the South compared with people who didn’t use talc powder.

The analysis can’t prove that talc causes ovarian cancer, nor does it identify a brand or chemical driving the association. Dale Sandler, one of the study’s authors and the chief of the epidemiology branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said there probably isn’t a way to prove causality in human studies.

“You can’t do a clinical trial and randomize people to ‘powder’ and ‘no powder.’ So we’re going to need to look to other types of research,” she said.

At the very least, the findings should prompt women to rethink their use of talc products, said Katie O’Brien, the lead author of the analysis and an epidemiologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

“We’re not aware of any medically necessary reasons why someone would need to use talcum,” she said.

Current formulations of J&J baby powder use cornstarch, not talc. The company pulled the talc-based versions from the North American market in 2020, citing waning demand and “misinformation around the safety of the product,” and discontinued the product internationally last year.

Talc and asbestos are found in close proximity in nature, so some raw talc collected via mining may be contaminated with asbestos , according to the Food and Drug Administration.

A 2018 Reuters investigation suggested that J&J knew some of its baby powder was contaminated with small amounts of asbestos as early as the 1970s. But J&J denies asbestos was ever present in its products.

O’Brien said asbestos might not be the only reason for an association between talc and cancer. Some talc products may also contain phthalates — chemicals that disrupt hormones in the body and have been linked to ovarian cancer . Plus, talc itself can be abrasive, she added, so it may cause inflammation in the areas where it’s applied. Inflammation is independently associated with the development of cancer.

A debate over the science

Debates over the research linking talc and ovarian cancer will almost certainly be a focus of upcoming litigation in the J&J case.

The New Jersey federal court ruled in March that the company can contest findings that link ovarian cancer to talc.

To support its position, J&J has pointed to research that O’Brien and Sandler published in 2020 , which did not find a statistically significant association between ovarian cancer and the use of talc powder.

But O’Brien said that older study may not have been set up to detect small changes in risk because it did not ask women about their lifetime use or factor in the chance that people might misremember their past habits. Sandler said the new study accounts for those two variables.

“This newer analysis sort of tips the balance by accounting for all these possible ways that reporting could have been incomplete in the prior literature,” she said.

How talc may have played into body shame

J&J started selling talc-based baby powder in 1894.

Although many women have used it to keep their genitals dry, there’s no need to use powder to get rid of moisture in that area, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women’s Voices for the Earth, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate chemicals that negatively affect women’s health.

“Moisture in this part of the body is a very healthy thing,” Scranton said. “This part of the body is covered in mucous membranes. It’s supposed to be moist.”

According to O’Brien’s research, some women in the 2000s — often those in their 20s and 30s — also used talc powder on their genitals to feel clean and reduce odor. That application isn’t advised by health experts, either, since the vagina is self-cleaning and good bacteria inside of it naturally produce a slight odor.

Companies like J&J were “basically creating and promoting this myth that this part of your body — your genitals, your vagina — are inherently dirty and that they’re inherently odorous, and therefore inherently shameful,” Scranton said.

J&J said it disagrees with that characterization.

Some women continue to use baby powder on their genitals or have adopted new products like vaginal washes or scented body deodorants.

“It’s so ingrained and so part of the way they take care of their bodies that they can’t imagine not doing it,” Scranton said. “They’ve got their mom’s voice in their head: ‘This is what you do to be a respectable woman.’”

Aria Bendix is the breaking health reporter for NBC News Digital.

Share full article

Supported by

When Is the Best Time to Work Out?

It’s an age-old question. But a few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer.

A silhouetted woman running along a body of water with the sun glistening behind her.

By Alexander Nazaryan

What is the best time of day to exercise?

It’s a straightforward question with a frustrating number of answers, based on research results that can be downright contradictory.

The latest piece of evidence came last month from a group of Australian researchers, who argued that evening was the healthiest time to break a sweat, at least for those who are overweight. Their study looked at 30,000 middle-aged people with obesity and found that evening exercisers were 28 percent less likely to die of any cause than those who worked out in the morning or afternoon.

“We were surprised by the gap,” said Angelo Sabag, an exercise physiologist at the University of Sydney who led the study. The team expected to see a benefit from evening workouts, but “we didn’t think the risk reduction would be as pronounced as it was.”

So does that mean that evening swimmers and night runners had the right idea all along?

“It’s not settled,” said Juleen Zierath, a physiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. “It’s an emerging area of research. We haven’t done all the experiments. We’re learning a lot every month.”

No single study can dictate when you should exercise. For many people, the choice comes down to fitness goals, work schedules and plain old preferences. That said, certain times of day may offer slight advantages, depending on what you hope to achieve.

The case for morning exercise

According to a 2022 study , morning exercise may be especially beneficial for heart health. It may also lead to better sleep .

And when it comes to weight loss, there have been good arguments made for morning workouts. Last year, a study published in the journal Obesity found that people who exercised between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. had a lower body mass index than counterparts who exercised in the afternoon or at night, though it did not track them over time, unlike the Australian study, which followed participants for an average of eight years.

Of course, the biggest argument for morning exercise may be purely practical. “For a lot of people, the morning is more convenient,” said Shawn Youngstedt, an exercise science professor at Arizona State University. Even if rising early to work out can be challenging at first , morning exercise won’t get in the way of Zoom meetings, play dates or your latest Netflix binge.

The case for afternoon exercise

A few small studies suggest that the best workout time, at least for elite athletes, might be the least convenient for many of us.

Body temperature, which is lower in the morning but peaks in late afternoon, plays a role in athletic performance. Several recent small studies with competitive athletes suggest that lower body temperature reduces performance (though warm-ups exercises help counter that) and afternoon workouts help them play better and sleep longer .

If you have the luxury of ample time, one small New Zealand study found that it can help to nap first. As far as the rest of us are concerned, a Chinese study of 92,000 people found that the best time to exercise for your heart was between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

“The main difference is our population,” Dr. Sabag said. While his study was restricted to obese people, the Chinese study was not. “Individuals with obesity may be more sensitive to the time-of-day effects of exercise,” he said.

The case for evening exercise

This latest study may not settle the debate, but it certainly suggests that those struggling with obesity might benefit from a later workout.

Exercise makes insulin more effective at lowering blood sugar levels, which in turn fends off weight gain and Type 2 diabetes, a common and devastating consequence of obesity.

“In the evening, you are most insulin resistant,” Dr. Sabag said. “So if you can compensate for that natural change in insulin sensitivity by doing exercise,” he explained, you can lower your blood glucose levels, and thus help keep diabetes and cardiovascular disease at bay.

One persistent concern about evening exercise is that vigorous activity can disturb sleep. However, some experts have argued that these concerns have been overstated.

The case that it may not matter

While many of these studies are fascinating, none of them is definitive. For one thing, most are simply showing a correlation between exercise times and health benefits, not identifying them as the cause.

“The definitive study would be to actually randomize people to different times,” Dr. Youngstedt said, which would be phenomenally expensive and difficult for academics.

One thing public health experts do agree on is that most Americans are far too sedentary. And that any movement is good movement.

“Whenever you can exercise,” Dr. Sabag urged. “That is the answer.”

In a recent edition of his newsletter that discussed the Australian study, Arnold Schwarzenegger — bodybuilder, actor, former governor — seemed to agree. He cited a 2023 study suggesting that there really isn’t any difference in outcomes based on which time of day you exercise. In which case, it’s all about what works best for you.

“I will continue to train in the morning,” the former Mr. Universe wrote. “It’s automatic for me.”

Alexander Nazaryan is a science and culture writer who prefers to run in the early evening.

Let Us Help You Pick Your Next Workout

Looking for a new way to get moving we have plenty of options..

Exercise can help lower blood pressure. But it’s not about which workout you choose; it’s how you do it .

To get the most out of your strength training, you need to let go of routine and try progressive overload .

What is the best time of day to exercise? A few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer .

Sprinting, at least for short distances, can be a great way to level up your workout routine .

Is your workout really working for you? Take our quiz to find out .

Pick the Right Equipment With Wirecutter’s Recommendations

Want to build a home gym? These five things can help you transform your space into a fitness center.

Transform your upper-body workouts with a simple pull-up bar and an adjustable dumbbell set .

Choosing the best running shoes and running gear can be tricky. These tips make the process easier.

A comfortable sports bra can improve your overall workout experience. These are the best on the market .

Few things are more annoying than ill-fitting, hard-to-use headphones. Here are the best ones for the gym and for runners .

A Detailed Analysis of Kesavananda Bharati Case [Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala(AIR 1973 SC 1461)]

Introduction.

“There were ‘grave consequences’ to treating the constitution as ‘as ordinary law to be changed at the will of the party in power’. If governments always could be trusted, there would have been no need for Fundamental Right.” [1]

While reaching at the end of arguments in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the legendary Indian jurist, and one of the craftsmen whose names deserve to be mentioned for outstanding contribution, Senior Advocate Mr. Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala representing the petitioner His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati quoted these views expressed by eminent jurist H.M Seervai before the Supreme Court to support his arguments. These views were also well accepted by the Court.

Since the enforcement of the Indian Constitution in the year 1950, the Supreme Court has come across various ups and downs. Though initially, it has played the role of the conservative court, in due course of time, it has also set many instances of playing the vital role in dispensing justice through judicial activism delivering various verdicts which always play the vital role in strengthening the base Constitutional democracy in India.

We know that the Supreme Court, being ‘Sentinel on the qui vive’ is the supreme protector of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ of citizens. It is duty-bound to safeguard the ‘Fundamental Rights’ of the citizens. On the other hand, it has also the duty to ensure the Constitutional validity of the laws, passed by the legislature exercising the power of ‘Judicial Review’ under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court has the power to invalidate any law which violates any part of the Constitution. Likewise, if the Government makes any law that takes away any or all of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part- III of the Constitution , the Supreme Court is duty-bound to make the law unconstitutional upholding the supremacy of the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

Among those landmark cases, Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala which established the ‘ Basic Structure Doctrine ’ deserves special mention. The main issue which was involved with this case was whether the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution were amenable or not. The Supreme Court established that it is the mandate of the State to enact or amend every law or bring any Constitutional Amendment in congruence with the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ also safeguarding the ‘Fundamental Rights’ of the citizens.

‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ is a common law doctrine that is well recognized in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. According to this doctrine, the Constitution of a sovereign state has some basic features or framework which cannot be amended or abrogated by the legislature at any time. In India, this doctrine was formulated by the Supreme Court through a series of cases in the 1950s and 1970s that formed the background of the establishment of ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ and culminated in the case Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala in 1973. The Kesavananda Bharati case is also known as the ‘Fundamental Rights Case’ as well as the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ case because in this case, this doctrine was first adopted by the Supreme Court.

Under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, the legislature has the power to amend any parts or Articles of the Constitution of India including the ‘Fundamental Rights’ , but it cannot amend or erase anything in such a way that changes the ‘Basic Structure or the Framework of the Constitution’. In this case, the Supreme Court explicitly defined some characteristics of the Indian Constitution as the very ‘Basic Structure’. If there is an onslaught on those features, it will definitely vitiate the sole intentions of the framers of the Constitution behind the enactment of the same.

Thus the Supreme Court established that even the constitutionally elected Government cannot do whatever it wishes to do especially in cases of Constitutional amendments. The Government can amend the Constitution for the need of the time, but it can no way take away the basic features of the Constitution . Justice Hans Raj Khanna propounded that “the Constitution of India has certain ‘basic features’ that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament of India .” The most important among these “Basic Features”, as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the ‘Fundamental Rights’ guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution. The basic framework of the Constitution must always remain unchanged.

This case also set some other rare instances in the Indian Judicial History. The hearing of this case was the longest ever because it had been heard for 68 days commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973. In this case also, for the first time the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges, led by 13 th Chief Justice of India Sarv Mittra Sikri who outlined the judgment, was formed.

The judgment of this case consists of 200 pages and the bench gave 11 separate judgments which were divided into the majority views of 7 judges and dissent views of 6 judges. Eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala, assisted by Fali S Nariman and Soli J Sorabjee , presented the case before the court against the Government in this case. More importantly, this case including the preceding cases starting from ‘Sankari Prasad Case’ to ‘Golaknath Case’ bear ample instances of the tussle of powers between the three most important pillars of democracy in India- the legislature, executive, and judiciary, although it can be undoubtedly said that ‘this case saved the democracy of India’. This can be termed as the “historic Fundamental Rights case prevented the nation from slipping into a totalitarian regime.” [2]

In this case, also the Supreme Court held that the ‘Preamble’ is the part of the Constitution. Thus the contributions of Petitioner Sripadagalvaru Kesavananda Bharati and the noted jurist Nani Palkhivala to save the democracy of India are unforgettable and indisputable.

Case Summary:

Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru And Others Versus State Of Kerala And Another (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
Equivalent Citations: 1973 4 SCC 225, 1973 SCR (Supp), 1 AIR 1973 SC 1461
Court: Supreme Court of India
Petitioners: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Others.
Respondents: State of Kerala & Another.
Bench: Majority – Sikri , (C.J); Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ.; Shelat and Grover, JJ.; Jaganmohan Reddy, J.; Khanna, J. Dissent- Ray, J. ; Palekar, J.; Mathew, J.; Beg, J.; Dwivedi, J.; Chandrachud, J.
Decided On: 2 4th April, 197 3
Referred Cases:
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union Of India And State Of Bihar (AIR. 1951 SC 458) ,
Sajjan Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845),
C. Golaknath & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anrs. (1967 AIR 1643) ,
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union Of India ( 1970 AIR 564) ,
Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India (1971 AIR 530 ),
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299) ,
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1980 AIR 1789) ,

Background and Core Facts of Kesavananda Bharati Case:

In this case, the petitioner His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru was the chief of ‘Edneer Matt’- a Hindu Mutt situated in Edneer, a town in Kasaragod Region of Kerala. This ‘Mutt’ had certain pieces of land acquired under its name. When the Kerala State legislature passes the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 which was further amended, and Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 came into force, by virtue of this Act, some lands were to be acquired by the State to fulfill its socio-economic obligations.

Therefore, the Fundamental Rights contained under the following Articles- Article 14 (Right to equality before the law), Article 19 (1)(f) (Right to acquire property which was later repealed by 44 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978), Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion), Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs), Article 31 (Compulsory acquisition of property which was later repealed by 44 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978), were infringed. On 21 st March 1970, the petitioner Kesavananda Bharati, being convinced by the noted jurist Nani Palkhivala challenged the Constitutional validity of Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 first in Kerala High Court and later in Supreme Court under Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of Indian Constitution.

Meanwhile, the Kerala Government again passed another Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, when the petition was still pending in the Supreme Court. Both the Kerala Land Reforms Legislations were challenged in Supreme Court.

Series of Cases:

The background of the Kesavananda Bharati case was not made in one night. There were series of preceding cases that were involved to cement the background of the case. In all of these cases, the same question was being raised again and again that whether the Fundamental Rights are amenable or not within the purview of Article 368 of the Constitution . In answer to this question, the Supreme Court gave several rulings and at last came to the final decision in Kesavananda Bharati Case. These cases were —

1. Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union Of India And State Of Bihar ( 1951 SC 458) :

In this case, the 1 st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged on the ground that it was violating the ‘Fundamental Rights’ incorporated in Part III of the Indian Constitution and therefore it. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this Constitutional Amendment Act and ruled that “the power of the legislature to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the ‘Fundamental Rights’ incorporated in Part III of the Constitution.” Thus, in this case, the Supreme Court held that Part III doesn’t possess any special status with respect to the other parts of the Constitution and the provisions incorporated in it are also amenable by the legislature under Article 368 like any other ordinary part of the Constitution.

2. Sajjan Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845) :

In this case, also the Supreme Court gave the same ruling as the Sankari Prasad Case. The 17 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 changed the definition of an “Estate” given in article 31A of the Constitution so as to include therein Lands held under Ryotwari Settlement in addition to other Lands in respect of which Provisions were normally made in Land Reform Legislations.

The Amendment also appended 44 additional State Legislations in regard to Land Reforms to the 9 th Schedule of the Constitution (Validation of certain Acts and Regulations under Article 31B) in order to secure the Constitutional Validity of those Amendment Acts.

More importantly, it also made the Provision to prevent those from being challenged before any Court within the territory of India on the ground that those are inconsistent with any of the Provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights of citizens. It also shortened the powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Amendment Act was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1965 on the ground that it was an onslaught on the Fundamental Rights of the citizen and most importantly, it was curtailing the power of ‘Judicial Review’ which empowers the Courts to review the laws passed by the legislature and strike down any law or its part if that is found to be inconsistent with any part of the Constitution.

The petitioner sought to the Court for striking down this Amendment Act on the ground of being unconstitutional as it was taking away the power of ‘Judicial Review’ which is very important to protect the democracy of any country. But, in this case, the Supreme Court again held that the legislature can amend any part of the Constitution including Article 13 and the ‘Fundamental Rights’ within the purview of Article 368. The principle of ‘Pith and Substance ’ was applied to this case.

Though the majority view, in this case, upheld the correctness of Sankari Prasad judgment, Justices J.R Mudholkar and M. Hidayatullah dissented in their views and they opined that the Constitution of India has some basic features and those are not supposed to come under the scope of Article 368. The basic features which are sacrosanct and unassailable must remain immune from arbitrary invasions of the State using the amending power under Article 368. Thus, in this case, Justice Mudholkar and Justice Hidayatullah first theorized the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ which was finally adopted in the Kesavananda Bharati Case.

3. I.C Golaknath & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anrs. (1967 AIR 1643) :

In this landmark case, the petitioner had 500 acres of land in Jalandhar, Punjab. By virtue of the Punjab Security and Land Tenure Act, 1953, the State Government was entitled to acquire 30 acres of land, and the rest of the land was to be distributed among the workers on the field for their welfare. This Act was placed in the 9 th Schedule by the 17 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964.

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the Constitutional Validity of the Act in Supreme Court in 1967 under the ground that it was incongruent with the certain ‘Fundamental Rights’ incorporated in Article 14, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India. As the Act was added to the 9 th Schedule by the 17 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, the 17 th Constitutional Amendment Act was challenged once again. In this case, also the same issue was raised again that whether the ‘Fundamental Rights’ are amenable or not within the scope of Article 368 by the legislature.

In this case, the Supreme Court altered the judgments of the Sajjan Singh and Sankari Prasad Cases and ruled that the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are unassailable and those don’t come within the purview of Article 368. The Court termed the power of the legislature to amend any of the Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution as ‘ultra vires’ which means beyond the powers. The 11 Judges Constitution Bench by the thin majority ratio of 6:5 judges held that the power of the Supreme Court in matters relating to ‘Judicial Review’ under Article 13 is also applicable to the Constitutional Amendment Acts passed by the Parliament for the reason that a Constitutional Amendment Act also comes within the purview of the definition of law set out in Article 13(3). Article 13(2) expressly states—

“ The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. ”

The majority view also decided that there is no large difference between a Constitutional Amendment Act and an Amendment Act of any ordinary law and hence, the Constitutional Amendment Acts passed by the Parliament are subject to judicial review.

Therefore, if the Parliament ‘takes away or abridges’ any of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ by bringing any Constitutional Amendment Act, the judiciary is empowered under Article 13 to invalidate that Constitutional Amendment Act, like any other ordinary Parliamentary enactment.

Another notable facet of this case was that in this, for the first time in India, 9th Chief Justice of India Kokka Subba Rao applied the ‘Doctrine of Prospective Overruling’ which was originally propounded by Justice Cardozo in the U.S Case- Great Northern Railway Co. vs. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. ( 287 U.S. 358) . To overrule the judgment of the Golaknath Case , the Parliament passed the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, and made the provision that the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unquestionable and unrestricted and naturally the background of the Kesavananda Bharati Case was formed.

4. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union Of India ( 1970 AIR 564) :

This case is also known as ‘Bank Nationalization Case’ . In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the Bank Nationalization Act, 1969 because of the compensation element of the enactment, but upheld the right of the Parliament to nationalize the banks.

5. Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India (1971 AIR 530):

This case is popularly known as ‘Privy Purses Case’ . In this case, also the Supreme Court again struck down the Presidential order, and as a result of which, the Government attempted to abolish ‘Privy Purses’ which were the payments promised to the erstwhile princes by the Indian Government at the time of Independence.

Series of Constitutional Amendments:

The several Constitutional Amendment Acts also formed a strong background of Kesavananda Bharati’s Case. Those are—

24 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971:

1. In order to surpass the ambiguities or difficulties made by the Supreme Court in Golaknath Case, the Parliament also amended Article 368 and annexed clause 3 to it which explicitly stipulated that—

“In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “Law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) “Laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.”

Thus it expressly excluded the Constitutional Amendment Acts from the purview of Article 13.

2. The Golaknath judgment laid down that the validity of every amendment made under Article 368 will be subject to the exception laid down in Article 13 of the Constitution. To overrule this judgment, the parliament annexed clause 4 to it and stipulated that “Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.”

3. In Golaknath Case, the majority of the judges relied upon the ‘Marginal Note’ of the earlier Article 368 to decide that the provision only stipulated the ‘Procedure of Amendment’ and not ‘Power’. The Marginal Note of Article 368 was amended and the word ‘Power’ was appended in the ‘Marginal Note’.

4. Through an Amendment in Article 368(2), the Parliament attempted to make difference between the ‘Procedure of Amendment’ in any ordinary law and any Constitutional Amendment. Earlier the President of India was empowered to have a choice to reject or withhold any bill for the Constitutional Amendments as well as the Amendments in ordinary laws presented before him for his assent, but after the 24th Constitutional Amendment, that power of the President to reject or withhold the Constitutional Amendment Bills was taken away. In this way, the Parliament tried to make the Process of Amendments of Constitution and an ordinary law different so as to secure the Constitutional Amendments from the exception stipulated under a combined reading of clause 1 and clause 3(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution.

25 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971:

1. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on C Cooper v. Union Of India (1970 AIR 564) , popularly known as the ‘Bank Nationalization Case’ in 1970, ruled that “the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation, that is, the equivalent money of the property compulsorily acquired.” It was also held in this case that “a law which seeks to acquire or requisition property for public purposes must satisfy the requirement of Article 19(1)(f).”

The 25th Constitutional Amendment sought to overrule the R.C Cooper judgment to overcome the restrictions imposed on the Government by this ruling of the Supreme Court. The Parliament in order to clarify their stance that they are not bound to adequately compensate the landowners introduced Amendment on Article 31(2) in the case when the property is acquired by the State. Through this Amendment, the word ‘Compensation’ was replaced by the word ‘Amount’.

2. Parliament delinked Article 19(1)(f) from Article 31(2) of the Constitution.

3. Article 31C, a new provision was annexed to the Constitution to remove and surpass all the difficulties. The Amendments were —

(a) Articles 14, 19 & 31 are not to be applied to any law enacted under the fulfillment of objectives laid down under Article 39(b) and 39(c).

(b) Any law to give effect to Article 39(b) & 39(c) will remain immune from the interventions of any Court.

29 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972:

Through this Constitutional Amendment, the Parliament placed two Kerala Land Reforms Acts in the 9 th Schedule of the Constitution. Even, 34th Amendment Act, 1974 included 20 more Land Tenure and Land Reforms Acts of various States in the 9th Schedule. In 29 th Amendment, it was also stipulated that those inclusions of impugned provisions of two Kerala Land Reforms Acts in 9 th Schedule will not be challenged in any Court and therefore, those will remain immune from ‘Judicial Scrutiny’.

In Kesavananda Bharati Case, the ‘Constitutional Validities’ of the impugned provisions of two Kerala Land Reforms Acts along with the 24 th , 25 th & 29 th Constitutional Amendment Acts were challenged in the Supreme Court as those all were curtailing the power of the Courts to ‘Judicial Review’ and thus the three Constitutional Amendment Acts prepared the most important background of this landmark case.

Cardinal Issues Involved in Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Whether the ‘Fundamental Rights’ contained in Part III of the Constitution are amenable by the Parliament within the scope of Article 368 or not.
Whether 24 th , 25 th & 29 th Constitutional Amendment Acts were valid or not.

The Verdict of Kesavananda Bharati Case:

In Kesavananda Bharati case, the judgment of Golaknath Case was overruled and the Supreme Court formulated the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ . It was well settled by the Court that provision pertaining to the Amendment of the Constitution is the characteristic or most important aspect of the modern Constitutions of every democratic country in the World. Each judge in this case laid out their separate views, what they thought were the basic or essential features of the Indian Constitution. Another notable fact is that there was no unanimity of opinions within the majority view either.

Nine amongst the thirteen judges- Justices J. M. Shelat , K.S. Hegde , A.N. Grover, B. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R Khanna , A.K. Mukherjee, Y.V. Chandrachud along with CJI S.M Sikri signed in the final verdict. On the other hand, the other four judges- Justices A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, and S.N. Dwivedi did not sign in the final verdict. The final verdict was divided into the majority views of 7 judges and dissent views of 6 judges.

The Majority decision was as follows —

“Article 368 does not enable the Parliament to alter the Basic Structure or framework of the Constitution. The power of Amendment does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution so as to change its identity.” [3]

As per then Chief Justice of India S.M Sikri—

“Golaknath case held that the word Amendment includes both legislative and Constitutional Amendment. Golaknath case did not decide on the expression Amendment of the Constitution under Article 368. Amendment to Constitution does not enable the Parliament to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights or completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution.” [4]

According to Justices Shelat and Grover along with Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, there are some ‘Basic Features’ of the Indian Constitution that cannot be changed or amended under Article 368 and those are —

Federal character of the Constitution,
Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary,
The supremacy of the Constitution,
Republican and democratic form of the Government,
Secular character of the Constitution.

Therefore, according to Justice S.M Sikri, the Parliament is constitutionally empowered to amend any Article of the Constitution except those which constitute ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’, even though Justices Hegde and Mukherjea proposed a separate and shorter list of ‘Basic Features’ —

Democratic character of the polity,
Sovereignty of India,
Essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens,
Mandate to build a ‘Welfare State’,
Unity of the Country.

They also commented that —

“Power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 before the 24th Amendment empowered the Parliament to amend each and every Article and each and every Part of the Constitution. Though the power under Article 368 is very wide, it does not include the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution.” [5]

In this Case, the Apex Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the 24 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 stating that Parliament has the power to amend any or all provisions of the Constitution except the ‘Basic Features’ which are given above.

Justice H.R Khanna stated that —

“Article 368 contains the procedure for Amendment of the Constitution as well as confers the power of amending the Constitution. Power of Amendment under Article 368 does not include power to abrogate the Constitution nor does it include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Power of Amendment is plenary subject to retention of basic structure. This includes the power to amend various Articles of the Constitution including those relating to Fundamental Rights. No part of Fundamental Right can claim immunity from amendatory process.” [6]

Justice Y.V Chandrachud stated that —

“The word Amendment in Article 368 has a clear and definite import and it connotes a power of the widest amplitude to make alterations, additions or variations. The decision that there is no distinction between an ordinary law and law amending the Constitution is incorrect. Article 13(2) dealt with only ordinary laws, not Amendments to Constitution effected under Article 368. The decision that Parliament had no power to amend the Constitution so as to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights is incorrect.” [7]

Further, the Court also held that certain keywords in the Preamble form an essential part of the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ and declared that “this basic structure was inviolable thereby casting a limitation to Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.” [8] Justice Jaganmohan Reddy also held that these following features of the preamble are ‘Basic Features’ —

Sovereign, democratic and republican nature,
The equality of the status,
Social, economic, and political justice,
Liberty of thoughts and expression,
Belief, faith, and worship.

In a nutshell, the basic features of the Indian Constitution which were decided by the Supreme Court were —

Supremacy of the Constitution ;
Rule of law ;
The principle of Separation of Powers ;
The objectives specified in the Preamble to the Constitution of India ;
Judicial Review ;
Articles 32 and 226 ;
Federalism (including financial liberty of states under Articles 282 and 293 );
Secularism ;
The Sovereign, Democratic, Republican structure;
Freedom and dignity of the individual;
Unity and integrity of the Nation;
The principle of equality, not every feature of equality, but the quintessence of equal justice;
The “essence” of other Fundamental Rights in Part III;
The concept of social and economic justice — to build a Welfare State ;
The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles ;
The Parliamentary system of government ;
The principle of free and fair elections;
Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368;
Independence of the Judiciary ;
Effective access to justice;
Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142;
Legislation seeking to nullify the awards made in exercise of the judicial power of the State by Arbitration Tribunals constituted under an Act.] [9]

Succinctly it was derived by the Court that the Parliament is empowered to amend any part of the Constitution, but the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution must remain intact.

Thus the Supreme Court evolved and adopted the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ to uphold those features of the Constitution of India as sacrosanct and inviolable from the arbitrary invasions of the State and the State must abide by those ‘Basic Characteristics’.

Effects of the Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299) : In this case, in order to negate the judgment of Allahabad High Court invalidating Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election to parliament, the 39 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975 was introduced by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Government during the time of National Emergency of 1975 and Article 329A was inserted through this Amendment which stipulated that the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha cannot be questioned. It attempted to regularize the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Speaker of Lok Sabha which was struck down by the Supreme Court citing the ‘Basic Features of Democracy’, ‘Rule of Law and Equality’ as held in Kesavananda Bharati Case.
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1980 AIR 1789) : In this case, the 42 nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. Through this Amendment Act, clauses 4 and 5 were inserted in Article 368 . This Constitutional Amendment made a large number of changes to the Constitution and also to the Preamble. In some points of view, it changed almost the full Constitution through a large number of Amendments to various Articles and introduced a new Constitution which was different in many ways from the original Constitution. Because of this reason, it is sometimes called a “Mini-Constitution”. The 42 nd Amendment also led to the addition of some new Articles and Clauses. Through this Constitutional Amendment, Parliament was conferred unquestionable and unrestrained power to amend any parts of the Constitution, overcoming the difficulties of ‘Judicial Review’. It transferred more powers from the State Governments to the Union Government, eroding India’s ‘Federal Structure’. The major changes which were made through this Constitutional Amendment were that it changed the words “unity of the nation” to “unity and integrity of the nation” and the description of India from “Sovereign Democratic Republic” to a “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic.” The Supreme Court eventually struck down the Constitutional Amendment on the ground that the ‘Judicial Review’ of any Parliamentary enactment, and the limitations of Parliamentary power to amend the Constitution. Those were curtailed by this 42 nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, itself constitute the significant parts of the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ and cannot be bypassed at any point in time.

Conclusion:

It is needless to say that Kesavananda Bharati Case is the most important case in the History of Independent India as it saved the ‘Democracy of India’ and Senior Advocate and legendary jurist Nani Palkhivala was the protagonist of this landmark case.

In an Article ‘ Palkhivala and the Constitution of India’ [10] authored by former Attorney General of India and Eminent Jurist- Soli J. Sorabjee, he stated that — Palkhivala believed that a Constitution is intended not merely to provide for the exigencies of the moment but to endure over the ages. He urged that we should get accustomed to a spacious view of the great instrument because “the Constitution was meant to impart such a momentum to the living spirit of the rule of law that democracy and civil liberty may survive in India beyond our own times and in the days when our place will know us no more”.

He pointed out that our original Constitution provided for stability without stagnation and growth without destruction of human values. He lamented that the recent amendments had only achieved stagnation without stability and destruction of human values without growth. Palkhivala did not at all believe that a Constitution is unamendable or cannot be changed. He shared the thinking of Thomas Jefferson who said: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and Constitution … but I know that the laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of human mind…. As new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.”

By this case, the Supreme Court firmly established that in a nation like India where the ‘Constitutional Democracy’ prevails, only the Constitution of India must be inducted into the most sacred ‘Pedestal of Deity’ immortalizing its ‘Fundamental Frameworks’ . Even though the petitioner His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati lost this case as the Supreme Court upheld the validity of two Land Reforms Acts which were challenged, this ‘Historic Fundamental Right’s Case’ impelled the Supreme Court to evolve the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ safeguarding the sacrosanct features of the Indian Constitution and it protected the nation from slipping into the totalitarian regime.

[1] . https://www.livelaw.in/columns/kesavananda-bharati-case-friendship-between-nani-palkhivala-hm-seervai-167083

[2] . https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kesavananda-bharati-the-petitioner-who-saved-democracy-but-lost-his-case-in-sc/article32535243.ece

[3] . https://advance.lexis.com/

[4] . https://advance.lexis.com/

[5] . https://advance.lexis.com/

[6] . https://advance.lexis.com/

[7] . https://advance.lexis.com/

[8] . https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/judicial-analysis-of-basic-structure-of-the-constitution-by-lakshay-bansal/

[9] . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine

[10] . Cite as : (2003) 4 SCC (Jour) 33

Share This Post

Drug-Impaired Driving: The Contribution of Emerging and Undertested Drugs

Impaired driving is often associated with alcohol use and frequently leads to accidents, injuries, and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one person was killed every 39 minutes in an alcohol-related crash in 2021. [1] But alcohol is not the only concern; the use of illicit drugs, legalized drugs such as cannabis, and the abuse of prescription medications may also impair a driver’s abilities. In 2022, an estimated 13.6 million people drove under the influence of illicit drugs during the prior year. [2]

In 2007, the National Safety Council (NSC) introduced testing scope and cutoff standardization for impaired driving cases and traffic fatalities to improve testing consistency. Since 2013, it has recommended that forensic toxicology labs regularly test blood for 35 of the most often encountered drugs and metabolites. Referred to as Tier I drugs ( Figure 1 ), they are now included as a testing standard in many forensic toxicology labs. [3] Furthermore, these compounds can be detected and confirmed with commonly used analytical instrumentation.

Figure 1. List of Tier I and Tier II drugs. Tier II drugs can be both individually named drugs and classes of drugs (e.g., atypical antipsychotics).

NSC also created a second drug category with significant impairment potential, termed Tier II drugs. These drugs include emerging novel psychoactive substances, prescription drugs, and traditional drugs of abuse with limited or regional prevalence, many of which require advanced instrumentation for detection. Most laboratories test for Tier I drugs, but only test for select Tier II drugs when they are regionally relevant. Therefore, the frequency and the types of Tier II substances contributing to drug-impaired driving cases and fatal crashes is not well understood.

NIJ-funded researchers from the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education examined blood samples from over 2,500 driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases. The goal was to create a detailed picture of both Tier I and Tier II drugs that contribute to impaired driving cases and compare results to the NSC’s recommended testing scopes. Researchers also analyzed drug presence at various blood alcohol concentrations to assess the operational impact of different testing thresholds and stop limit testing.

What is Stop Limit Testing?

If a sample meets or exceeds a pre-determined blood alcohol concentration threshold, some labs will not perform any additional drug tests. This cutoff is most commonly either 0.08% or 0.10%. [4] The legal blood alcohol limit in the U.S. across every state is 0.08%. Labs that adhere to this practice will not detect other drugs that may cause or contribute to driving impairment.

This stop limit testing can interfere with a comprehensive understanding of drug involvement in impaired driving. Why do so many labs use it?

Toxicology labs have limited budgets and resources.
Driving impairment can be explained by the blood alcohol concentration alone.
A lack of enhanced penalties for drug use means there is no need to measure beyond the blood alcohol level.
Agencies that use the laboratories’ services have requested this limit.

National Safety Council Recommendations Are Supported

Researchers estimated the frequency with which drugs contribute to the national DUID problem by testing 2,514 cases using a scope of 850 therapeutic, abused, and emerging drugs. They examined deidentified blood samples randomly selected from a pool of suspected impaired driving cases. The samples were collected from NMS Labs in Horsham, Pennsylvania, between 2017 –2020.

Of the 2,514 suspected DUID cases examined:

The overall drug positivity (Tier I or Tier II drugs) was 79%, nearly double the 40% positive for alcohol ( Figure 2 ).
A smaller portion of cases (23%) tested positive for both drugs and alcohol.
Only 17% of the cases were positive for alcohol alone.
Naturally occurring cannabinoids experienced a statistically significant increase in positivity over the four years.

Figure 2. The frequency of cases with (a) no drugs or ethanol detected (4%), (b) ethanol detected (40%), (c) drugs and ethanol detected (23%), and (d) drugs detected (79%).

Alcohol use in combination with drugs spanning multiple categories was common, as was multiple drugs used in combination. THC (the primary psychoactive component of marijuana) was most often found with ethanol (n=359), and it was frequently found with amphetamine/methamphetamine (n=146).

Samples with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher that were also positive for either Tier I or Tier II drugs occurred 19% of the time (n=478). Cases with blood alcohol content of 0.10% (the cutoff used most frequently by toxicology labs) were also positive for Tier I or Tier II drugs 17.3% of the time (n=434). This suggests that laboratories employing stop limit testing may miss many drug-positive cases.

“Limiting testing based on alcohol results precludes information of drug involvement in several cases and leads to underreporting of drug contributions to impaired driving,” said Mandi Moore, one of the researchers involved in the study.

The research supported NSC’s recommendations for Tier I and Tier II testing. Tier I drugs were found in 73% of suspected impaired driving cases while only 3% contained just Tier II drugs. This suggests that Tier I testing captures the vast majority of drug-involved DUID cases. However, some Tier II drugs (diphenhydramine, gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and two novel psychoactive substances) were found as often or more often than some Tier I drugs, potentially indicating their increased prevalence and a need to re-examine guidelines.

Study Limitations

The cases used in this analysis were exclusively from Pennsylvania. Therefore, they provide a geographically limited snapshot rather than a comprehensive characterization for the entire U.S. population. However, the sample size of over 2,500 cases was “suitable to meet the research goals outlined” by the researchers.

Because Tier II and novel psychoactive substances were found in relatively low frequencies, the researchers did not develop or validate additional confirmatory methods as they had previously planned.

Filling in the Big Picture Details

This work increases awareness of drugs that labs are less likely to test for and labs’ role in addressing the DUID problem. It also demonstrates how frequently DUID cases involve drugs other than alcohol. Although stop limit testing can be justified, data on both alcohol and drug use creates the clearest picture of DUID contributing factors. Current estimates of drug frequency in DUID cases are likely to be inaccurate and actual usage is likely to be higher than previously believed due to stop limit testing. Equipping labs with sufficient resources could encourage labs to eliminate stop limit testing.

About This Article

The work described in this article was supported by NIJ award number 2020-DQ-BX-0009 , awarded to the Frederic Rieders Family Renaissance Foundation.

This article is based on the grantee report “ Assessment of the Contribution to Drug Impaired Driving from Emerging and Undertested Drugs ” (pdf, 26 pages), by Amanda L.A. Mohr and Barry Logan, The Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE) at the Frederic Rieders Family Renaissance Foundation.

[1] NHTSA.gov, accessed January 29,2024, https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving .

[2] Select Illicit Drugs include the use of marijuana, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or methamphetamine. For more information, see "Table 8.35A" in 2022 NSDUH Detailed Tables, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt42728/NSDUHDetailedTabs2022/NSDUHDetailedTabs2022/NSDUHDetTabsSect8pe2022.htm#tab8.35a .

[3] ANSO/ASB Standard 120.

[4] Amanda D’Orazio, Amada Mohr, and Barry Logan, “Updates for Recommendations for Drug Testing in DUID & Traffic Fatality Investigations, Toxicology Laboratory Survey,” Willow Grove, PA: The Center for Forensic Science Research & Education at the Frederic Rieders Family Foundation, June 28, 2020, https://www.cfsre.org/images/content/research/toxicology/Survey_Report_Final.pdf .

Cite this Article

Related Awards

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer

Einav Hart,
Julia Bear,
Zhiying (Bella) Ren

A series of seven studies found that candidates have more power than they assume.

Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that these fears are consistently exaggerated: Candidates think they are much more likely to jeopardize a deal than managers report they are. This fear can lead candidates to avoid negotiating altogether. The authors explore two reasons driving this fear and offer research-backed advice on how anxious candidates can approach job negotiations.

Imagine that you just received a job offer for a position you are excited about. Now what? You might consider negotiating for a higher salary, job flexibility, or other benefits , but you’re apprehensive. You can’t help thinking: What if I don’t get what I ask for? Or, in the worst-case scenario, what if the hiring manager decides to withdraw the offer?

Einav Hart is an assistant professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. Her research interests include conflict management, negotiations, and organizational behavior.
Julia Bear is a professor of organizational behavior at the College of Business at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her research interests include the influence of gender on negotiation, as well as understanding gender gaps in organizations more broadly.
Zhiying (Bella) Ren is a doctoral student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on conversational dynamics in organizations and negotiations.

Partner Center

IMAGES

Article 368 of the constitution
Constitutional Amendment Infographic Article 368
Detailed overview on Article 368 of Indian Constitution
Article 13 (Part 2)
Article 368 of Indian Constitution
Power to Amend the Constitution under Article 368

VIDEO

Admission of Partnership
upsc aspirants l ias motivation l #motivation #status #study #ias#ips #trending #viral #shortsfeed
CHRIS WATTS SNAPPED!
LIVE UGC NET Economics Questions Solving
720 ZŁOTYCH za gotowe PRESS ON NAILS?
Grade 11 Accounting Term 2

COMMENTS

Amendment of the Constitution of India
v. t. e. Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of ...
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24
Fourthly, in any case Article 368 is a complete code in itself and does not provide for any amendment being made in the bill after it has been introduced in the House. ... (A study) by B. Shiva Rao. In the earliest draft the Preamble was something formal and read : "We, the people of India, seeking to promote the common good, do hereby, through ...
Minerva Mills v Union of India (Minerva Mills Case)
Analysis of the Minerva Mills Case Judgement. Minerva Mills case may be regarded as one of the most remarkable cases in the history of Independent India. Through this case, the Supreme court ensured a balance between DPSP and Fundamental Rights. Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court of India depicted valour while declaring clause (4) and ...
The Amendment of the Constitution: Article 368
The powers prescribed by Article 226 will be affected by the Seventeenth Amendment and thus the Act should follow the special provisions set down by Article 368. The decision held in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar should be reconsidered. The Seventeenth Amendment Act deals with land.
PDF Basic Structure Doctrine: Kesavananda Bharati Case
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. To dis-effect the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao ...
Article 368's Role And The Constitutional Amendment Procedure
Simple Majority: The majority of members of each house present and vote. This is similar to the ordinary law-making process. Exclusions from Article 368: Such amendments are not considered under Art.368. Example: Recently, the number of SC judges was increased from 31 to 34 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. Following provisions can be amended by simple majority
A brief analysis of Article 368 and some important cases around it
from different constitutions put emphasis on making the. Constitution flexible a nd adaptable to the changing. situation of th e society and hence, article 368. Article 368. gives the parliament ...
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others on 18 February, 1992
Article 368-Constitutional amendment-Amending powers- Scope,object, nature and limitations explained. Extinction of rights and restriction of remedy for enforcement of right-Distinction between-Extinction of remedy without curtailing right-Whether makes a change in the right. Administrative Law : Judicial review-Statute-Finality and ouster ...
Anti-Defection Law: Analysis of Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu, AIR 1993
The para 7 undertakes to change the impact of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution which gives the High Courts and Supreme Court jurisdiction in such cases." Any such rule or regulation is required to be legally sanctioned and compiled by the state legislature bodies according to Article 368(2).
Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and
Article 368 provides for the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. It gave Parliament the exclusive power to amend (add or remove provisions) the Constitution and outlines how this power must be exercised. It stated that an amendment requires the approval of a two-thirds majority in Parliament and in some cases, the consent of half of India's States.
Amendment of the Constitution: Meaning, Types, Procedure & Limitations
The Constitution of India, as the supreme law of the land, should be responsive to changing needs and situations.The provision for amendment of the Constitution of India under Article 368 accommodates this requirement. This article of Next IAS aims to explain the meaning of the amendment of the Constitution, its procedure, types, significance, limitations, and more.
I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs
State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. ... This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's ...
Doctrine of Eclipse
Doctrine of Eclipse And Article 368. The landmark case of I. C. Golaknath v.State of Punjab, where the petitioner contended that his rights laid down in Article 19(f) [which is now repealed], Article 19(g) and Article 14 were being violated. This case also sparked a debate on Article 368. In the judgement, the court curtailing the power of the Parliament held that Fundamental Rights cannot be ...
The Procedure to amend the Constitution under Article 368
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution provides the procedure of Amendment. Indian Constitution is neither rigid nor flexible because, under Article 368, the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority or by the special majority and by the majority of not less than 2/3 members of each house. There are two types of Amendment procedures.
Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala
The verdict passed by Supreme Court of India in the Kesavananda Bharati & Ors vs State of Kerala case on 24th April 1973 is considered as a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India. The case is concerning Land Reforms Amendment Act (1969) passed by the Government of Kerala. Learn more about the contentions of the petitioner and respondent in Kesavananda Bharati Case. Download PDF. For ...
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine? / Feature Theory ...
The validity of 42nd Amendment Act and clause (4) & (5) of Article 368 were challenged in this case. Supreme Court said these two clauses attacking the Basic Feature of the Constitution and it ...
Article 368 Of Indian Constitution: Constitutional Amendment
The power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is given in Article 368 of Indian Constitution in part XX . It provides that Parliament may alter any provision of this Constitution through addition, variation, or repeal in accordance with the process outlined in this article when exercising its constituent authority.
article 368
The provisional Parliament is competent to exercise the power of amending the Constitution under Art. 368. The fact that the said article refers to the two Houses of the Par- liament...the provisional Parlia- ment to exercise the power conferred by the article. The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure ...
Article 368
State of Kerala [8] popularly called the fundamental Right case, that the power to amend the constitution emanates from Article 368 of the Constitution. It means that unlike the power to make the constitution, the power to amend it, is derivative in nature. The court further held that the expression "to amend" was one of the wide imports ...
Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 10 October, 1968
Orderspassed by the President of India under Art. 370(1). On 18th March 1968, the petitioner was detained by the. District Magistrate under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive. Detention Act, 1964. The State Government acting under s. 13 A of the Act continued the detention without making any. reference to the Advisory Board.
Types of Amendments in the Indian Constitution & Constitutional
Article 368 deals with the constitutional amendment process. Three are three types of amendments in the constitution. Read about the amendments of the Indian Constitution, Article 368, constitutional amendment process and also the source of amendability. Download types of amendments notes PDF for IAS Exam. For UPSC 2024 preparation, follow BYJU'S.
Minerva Mills vs Union of India : a significant case that India has
This article is written by Darshit Vora from SVKM, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, this article critically analyses the Minerva Mills Judgment also explains the concept of basic structure and the concept of judicial review. Various contents of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 have been included in this article. Introduction Fundamental Rights are the […]
We Asked ChatGPT If Donald Trump Is Guilty in the Hush-Money Trial
The ongoing Donald Trump hush-money case will be decided by a jury of 12 New Yorkers. We ran a trial transcript through AI chatbots and asked how they'd decide if they were jurors.
Study Suggests Genetics as a Cause, Not Just a Risk, for Some Alzheimer
The new designation, proposed in a study published Monday, could broaden the scope of efforts to develop treatments, including gene therapy, and affect the design of clinical trials.
Study links talc use to ovarian cancer
The researchers are from the National Institutes of Health, and their findings were based on data from the Sister Study, which enrolled more than 50,000 women in the U.S. from 2003 to 2009.
Should You Exercise in the Morning or the Evening ...
Last year, a study published in the journal Obesity found that people who exercised between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. had a lower body mass index than counterparts who exercised in the ...
A Detailed Analysis of Kesavananda Bharati Case
In this case, also the same issue was raised again that whether the 'Fundamental Rights' are amenable or not within the scope of Article 368 by the legislature. In this case, the Supreme Court altered the judgments of the Sajjan Singh and Sankari Prasad Cases and ruled that the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution ...
Drug-Impaired Driving: The Contribution of Emerging and Undertested
Impaired driving is often associated with alcohol use and frequently leads to accidents, injuries, and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one person was killed every 39 minutes in an alcohol-related crash in 2021.[1] But alcohol is not the only concern; the use of illicit drugs, legalized drugs such as cannabis, and the abuse of prescription ...
Early Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD and Asthma
Of 38,353 persons interviewed, 595 were found to have undiagnosed COPD or asthma and 508 underwent randomization: 253 were assigned to the intervention group and 255 to the usual-care group.
Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer
Summary. Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that ...

Article 368’s Role and the Constitutional Amendment Procedure

Introduction

Amendment of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Basic Structure

Procedure for the Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368)

Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

Recommended For You

Eastern Ganga Kingdom: Power, Conquests and C...

THE MOST LEARNING PLATFORM

Our Courses

Subscribe our Newsletter

Contact Details

Download Our App

Anti-Defection Law: Analysis of Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor

Article 304, Draft Constitution of Indian 1948

Article 365, Constitution of India 1950

Amendment of the Constitution: Meaning, Types, Procedure & Limitations

Meaning of the Amendment of the Constitution

Provisions of Amendment of Indian Constitution

Procedure for Amendment to the Indian Constitution

Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution

By Simple Majority of Parliament

By Special Majority of Parliament

By Special Majority of the Parliament and Consent of Half States

Basic Structure of the Constitution

Significance of the Constitutional Amendment

Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

Important Amendments in the Indian Constitution

Who has the power to amend the Constitution?

What is Simple Majority?

What is Special Majority?

What is Absolute Majority?

What is Effective Majority?

What is Article 368?

Which part of the Constitution deals with amendment?

Can Article 32 be amended?

How many times was the Preamble of the Constitution amended?

What is the latest amendment in the Indian Constitution?

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Featured Post

NEXT IAS (Old Rajinder Nagar)

NEXT IAS (Mukherjee Nagar)

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Its Evolution, Features, Provisions & Criticism

Article 368 of Indian Constitution

Original Text of Article 368 of Indian Constitution:

Article 368 of Indian Constitution Explanation:

The procedure of the Amendment of the Constitution

By Simple Majority

By Special Majority

By Special Majority and Ratification of States

Procedures under Article 368 of Indian Constitution

List of Amendments in Article 368 of Indian Constitution:

FAQ’s Related to article 368 of Indian Constitution

Other Related Links:

Our UPSC/IAS Coaching Institutes in India

GS 1 Topper Notes

UPSC Current Affairs

GS 2 Topper Notes

Indian Constitution

UPSC Syllabus Updated

GS 3 Topper Notes

Best IAS Coaching in Delhi

Daily/Yearly Current Affairs

GS 4 Topper Notes

SUGGESTIONS

Keyword Alert(s)

Overruled By

Types of Amendments & Constitutional Amendment Process in India - Indian Polity

Amendments of the Indian Constitution – What is Article 368?

Types of Amendments in Indian Constitution

Types of Amendments – Constitutional Amendment Process

Scope of Amendability in Indian Constitution

Frequently Asked Questions related to Article 368

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs