Constitutional Amendments And Their Impact On Indian Democracy
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THEIR IMPACT
ON INDIAN DEMOCRACY
Animesh Pundir, Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution has undergone more than 100 amendments to date, with several playing a crucial role in shaping the nation as it stands today. The relatively straightforward procedure for passing constitutional amendments has contributed to the numerous changes. Notably, the 1st, 4th, 17th, 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments, which involved fundamental rights, led the judiciary to impose limitations on the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This tension between the Supreme Court and Parliament, where the latter sought broad discretionary power while the former aimed to restrict it, culminated in the establishment of the Basic Structure doctrine in 1973. The Basic Structure doctrine limits the legislature's power to amend the Constitution, protecting fundamental principles such as secularism, independence of the judiciary, federalism, and the rule of law.
Under Article 368, an amendment can be challenged if it violates the Constitution's basic structure, a distinction from ordinary legislation. In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, it was held that Parliament's power to amend is limited; Article
368 outlines the procedure for amendment, while the authority is derived
from Article 245 in conjunction with List 1 of the Constitution. This principle was further elaborated in the Kesavananda Bharti case. Subsequently, the Minerva Mills case brought constitutional amendments within the scope of judicial review, solidifying the judiciary's role in overseeing the amendment process.
INTRODUCTION
In human societies, there has always been a tension between the forces of stability and the need for change. When stability leads to stagnation, it often results in upheavals and revolutions. In pursuit of stability, societies have adopted written constitutions, which typically include provisions for change to address this ongoing tension. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution by adding, varying, or repealing its provisions, as well as outlining the procedure for doing so. By August 1, 2015, there had been 100 constitutional amendments, with 22 additional amendment bills still pending. Some of these amendments have had a profound and lasting impact on the nation. This paper highlights the most significant amendments, the social and political contexts in which they were enacted, and their impact on the country.
It also explores the concept of constitutional amendments and the rationale behind India's decision to incorporate this mechanism into its legal framework. The Indian Constitution's integrity is to be upheld while Parliament's arbitrary authority is restrained through the amendment process. The idea of constitutional modifications was taken from South Africa by the Indian Constitution, which is influenced by several international models. The head of the drafting committee, B. R. Ambedkar, is credited as saying that the Indian Federation will not be plagued by the problems of inflexibility or overly strict legislation. My interest in constitutional law, sparked during my current studies, has been the primary motivation behind this research paper.
As I delved deeper into the subject, I became particularly fascinated by the dynamic relationship between stability and change within a democratic framework. The process of constitutional amendments, which embodies this relationship, stood out to me as a pivotal mechanism that both preserves the foundational principles of a nation and allows for necessary evolution in response to societal shifts. India's rich constitutional history, marked by numerous amendments, presents a compelling case study of how a nation navigates the delicate balance between upholding its core values and adapting to new challenges. The debates and controversies surrounding these amendments, especially those that have shaped fundamental rights and the structure of governance, underscore the ongoing dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature in safeguarding democracy.
This paper is an attempt to explore and understand the profound impact that
constitutional amendments have had on Indian democracy. My goal is to analyze how these changes have influenced the country's legal and political landscape, and to critically assess the implications of the amendment process on the broader democratic ethos. Through this research, I aim to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the importance of constitutional flexibility and the protection of fundamental principles within a democracy.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
In India, constitutional amendments are a vital instrument for adjusting the text to changing social and political demands and maintaining the flexibility of the legal and institutional structure. The 1950 draft of the Indian Constitution was intended to be a living constitution that could be altered to reflect changing local, national, and international circumstances. The process of changing the Constitution, however, also presents a number of difficulties for the upholding of democratic values. The possibility that dominant political parties may utilize constitutional modifications to weaken democratic principles, circumvent checks and balances, and consolidate power is one of the main causes for concern.
Although Article 368 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to change its provisions, frequent or politically driven alterations have the potential to undermine public confidence in the inviolability of the instrument. In the context of India's federal system, where the distribution of power between the federal and state governments is a delicate subject, this question becomes more pertinent. Concerns over some amendments' effects on state autonomy and the larger democratic framework have grown over time. The effect of modifications on judicial independence and basic rights is a further issue of concern. Some amendments, like the 42nd Amendment of 1976, which was passed under the Emergency, have come under fire for trying to restrict people's freedoms and the judiciary's ability to evaluate legislation for constitutionality.
Even if many of these modifications were ultimately undone, they show how amendments may be used to weaken balances on the executive branch and undermine the rule of law, which can be dangerous for democracy. The difficulty is in striking a balance between the requirement for changes and the need for constitutional stability. In order to solve gaps and handle new challenges like social justice, economic equality, and environmental preservation, the Constitution must be amended. Excessive or carelessly thought out modifications, however, run the danger of
causing misunderstandings, undermining institutional legitimacy, and inflaming political tensions.
SCOPE OF STUDY
This study aims to explore the role and impact of constitutional amendments on Indian democracy. The scope of the research is broad, encompassing a detailed analysis of significant amendments, their historical and socio-political contexts, and their long-term effects on the nation's governance and democratic principles. The paper will cover the following areas: 1. Historical Background and Evolution- An examination of the origins of the amendment process in the Indian Constitution, including the rationale behind its inclusion and the influences from other constitutional frameworks. 2. Key Constitutional Amendments- A detailed analysis of the most impactful amendments, particularly those related to fundamental rights, the structure of government, and the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
This includes amendments like the 1st, 4th, 17th, 24th, 25th, and 29th, among others. 3. Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine- An exploration of the judiciary's role in interpreting and limiting the power of constitutional amendments, with a focus on landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharti, Golaknath, and Minerva Mills. 4. Social and Political Impact- An analysis of how these amendments have shaped India's socio-political landscape, influencing issues such as secularism, federalism, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. 5. Contemporary Relevance and Future Implications- A discussion on the ongoing relevance of the amendment process in modern India, including the challenges and opportunities it presents for the future of Indian democracy.
OBJECTIVES
Analyze the Type and Frequency of Amendments to the Constitution
Assess the Effect on Democratic Establishments • Examine the Effect on Essential Rights • Examine the Court's Reactions to Amendments to the Constitution • Examine How Political Motives Affect Constitutional Amendments • Identify the Challenges and Risks of Frequent Amendments • Provide Suggestions for Constitutional Amendments That Will Protect Democratic Values
LITERATURE REVIEW
1) “Constitution being the supreme law of the land is binding on the government and
the people. It performs numerous functions in a modern welfare state. One of these functions could be to serve as a repository for a bunch of society's fundamental political values. Substantively, the Constitution can reflect these values by forbidding governmental interference with the freedom of religion, and in procedural ways, it provides that government can punish people for criminal actions only after trial at which defendant has been represented by his counsel. The three organs of a modern welfare democracy; legislature, executive and the judiciary, all stand on equal footing with respect to Constitutional responsibilities. Although, this position varies continuously as one organ asserts more authority over the other and claim to perform better in performing Constitutional obligations. On the other hand, changes to a constitution may be motivated by selfish or partisan goals.
Since a constitution sets the rules of the ‘political game’, those in power may be tempted to change the rules to extend their tenure in power, to secure their position, to marginalize the opposition or minorities, or to limit civil and political rights. Such changes may weaken, or even undermine, democracy. Harold J. Laski has observed”: "Law, like life, has its periods of change and its periods of conservation; it is not a closed system of eternal rules elevated above time and place. The respect it can win is measured by the justice it embodies, and its power to embody ideals of justice depends upon its conscious effort
to respond in an equal way to the widest demands it encounters.1 A Constitution to be considered living and growing, must be adaptable, must be flexible and must be adaptable. An arrangement for amendment of the Constitution is made with a view to conquering the troubles, which maybe experienced in future in the working of the Constitution.”2
2) “Sir Charles Metcalfe, the then governor general of India (1835–1836), called the
villages ‘the little republics’. The Mayo Resolution of 1870, no doubt, added strength to the local self-government. Thereafter, the Lord Rippon Resolution emerged as a landmark in the history and evolution of the local governments. This resolution is still considered to be the ‘Magna Carta’ of local democracy in India . The 73rd Constitutional Amendment 1993 gave the local self-government a constitutional status, although it remains a state subject as the status of the XIth Schedule is similar to the Directive Principles of State Policy. Even before the proverbial 73rd CAA, the Jyoti Basu’s Communist government in West Bengal in 1977 and Ramakrishna Hegde’s Janata government in Karnataka in 1987 had given greater importance to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in their respective states.
Gandhian socialists like Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) also advocated ‘direct democracy’ at the village level and stated that the Gram Sabha signifies democracy at village level. He argued that let us have direct democracy at the village level and representative government upwards to Delhi. He further said that the relationship between the panchayat and Gram Sabha should be that of the cabinet and assembly. The principal focus of the panchayat has to be the dispensation of local issues and resolution of local disputes. There are several studies that have highlighted the importance, status and functions of the Panchayati Raj after the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. ”3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research will adopt a qualitative approach, combining doctrinal legal research with empirical analysis. The study will rely on primary and secondary sources, including
1 Krishan Keshav, Constitutional Law. Singhal Publications, 2016, p280.
2 Raj, P., & NOORANI, M. S. (2020). Constitutional Amendment: A Critical Analysis. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, 2(3). 3 Brahmanandam, T. (2018). Review of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment: Issues and Challenges. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 64(1), 103-121.
constitutional texts, legislative debates, case law, and scholarly writings, to understand the historical context, motivations, and consequences of various constitutional amendments. The core of the research will focus on a detailed analysis of the constitutional text and amendments. A thorough study of the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 368, which governs constitutional amendments, to understand the legal framework and procedural requirements for amendments. Identification and in-depth analysis of key amendments that have had a significant impact on Indian democracy, such as the 42nd, 44th, 73rd, and 101st amendments. This will include studying the legislative intent, political context, and the broader socio-political implications of each amendment.
Examination of the debates in Parliament surrounding major amendments to understand the political motivations and arguments for and against these changes. To understand the judiciary’s role in interpreting and reviewing constitutional amendments, the research will focus on: A study of landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which established the Basic Structure Doctrine, and other significant cases that have shaped the Court’s approach to constitutional amendments. Analyzing how the judiciary has used its powers of judicial review to uphold or strike down amendments, focusing on the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional principles. Gathering statistical data on the number and nature and importance of amendments passed since 1950, categorized by the type of change (structural, social, economic, or political).
This data will help analyze trends in amendment frequency and their correlation with shifts in political power and governance styles. An analysis of the political context, including changes in government, electoral mandates, and the role of political parties in influencing amendments. This will involve tracing patterns of amendments during periods of single-party dominance versus coalition governments. Reviewing academic literature on constitutional law, democratic theory, and Indian political history to provide a theoretical framework for understanding the impact of constitutional amendments on democracy. Analyzing reports from legal commissions, constitutional law committees, and expert panels that have recommended or critiqued constitutional amendments.
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES”
The founders of the Constitution did not intend for the Parliament's amending power to be
limited, as evidenced by the Constituent Assembly Debates4. "As solid and permanent as the Constitution must be, it must also permit National growth," Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru stated to the Constituent Assembly. He said that "because the new Parliament would represent every adult in India, it is the right that the House elected so should have an opportunity to make such changes as it wants to"5 . needs that might develop as the country develops6. Amendments are not only allowed to address problems with the way the Constitution operates, but they are also necessary to bridge the generational divide between the beliefs, demands, and objections of the modern world and those of the Constitution's framers and to keep up with the growing constitutionalist movement in tandem with society's changing needs.
An amendment may outweigh the modifications necessary for the and even changes brought about by amendments follow the latest fashions. Even when the courts interpret the alterations made, it could already be too late for the original values to endure and be saved, the sacred text in its purified form7. Amendments bring about adjustments in line with emerging trends8. ”
POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Depending on the importance and consequences of the provisions, different parts of the Constitution are subject to varying degrees of stringency. The Indian Constitution allows for three types of amendments: • The substantially less significant clauses are amendable in the same way as regular legislation is approved by Parliament; • Article 365 stipulates that provisions deemed significant or critical must have a special majority. • According to Article 368, ratification by more than half of state legislatures is necessary for measures that affect the nation or the majority of states and, ultimately, the federal character of the nation.
4 “D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 14-xisNexis, Haryana, 2013, 01260.
5 CAD Vol.V1I 4323.
6 M.P. lain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis, Vol. 11, 2010, p.2306-2307
7 Supra note at 6, p.11259
8 Kagzi, The Constitution of India, EBC, 2001, p.931.”
1) Procedure of amending the constitution
"Regardless of anything else in this Constitution, Parliament may, by using its constituent authority, alter any provision by adding to, changing, or repealing it in conformity with the guidelines outlined in this article. • “A constitutional amendment can only be started by introducing a bill in either house of parliament.
Once a bill is approved by the majority of members present and voting in each house, it is sent to the president, who will then sign the bill into law, amending the Constitution to reflect the provisions of the bill: As long as the proposed amendment doesn't try to alter anything related to:” • “Article 54, Article 55, Article 73, Article 162 or Article 241, or; • Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter 1 of Part Xl, or; • any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or; • the representation of States in Parliament, or ; • the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislature of not less than one half of the States by resolution to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent. ”
2) “Article 368 and its modified history”
Art. 368 was originally changed by the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, in an attempt to overturn the ruling made in the Golak Nath case18. Chapter IV goes into great length on the judicial interpretation of the Indian Constitution's amendments as well as other court declarations9. • Up until 1967, the Supreme Court had ruled in earlier cases that no part of
9 Supra note at 6, p,11238
our Constitution was unchangeable and that Parliament may amend any clause, even Part III and Art. 368, by adhering to the requirements of that provision. 10 • However, in the Golak Nath case, the majority overruled the earlier rulings and adopted the stance that, even though there isn't a clear exception from the scope of Art. 368, the Fundamental Rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution cannot, by definition, be changed through the procedure outlined in Art. 368; rather, any changes to these rights require calling for the creation of a new Constituent Assembly in order to amend the existing one or to make significant changes to it. ”11 • “The Golak Nath case's majority ruling was replaced by the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, which added clauses el. (4) to Art. 13 and cl. (1) to Art. 368. As a result, an amendment to the Constitution passed in accordance with Art.
368 will not be considered "law" in the sense of Art. 13, nor will the legality of such an act be called into question because it violates or diminishes a fundamental right. This Amendment clarified that Article 368 pertains to Parliament's "constituent" authority, whilst Article 13 deals with its "legislative" power. It further stated that when Parliament exercises its "constituent" power under Art 368, Parliament could amend the Constitution in any way, even by repealing Art. 368 itself, rather than only making cosmetic adjustments as it had been decided in the Golak Nath case. The express provision in Article 368 (3) stated unequivocally that any Act amending the Constitution would not be covered by Art. 13. ” The same Amending Act engrafted clause (4) in Art. 13, further solidifying this concept.
FIRST AMENDMENT ACT, 1951”
The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, introduced by Prime Minister Nehru with the support of B.R. Ambedkar, addressed issues arising from judicial decisions in the first
10 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC
458 11 Supra note at 6, p.11238.
fifteen months of its operation. The amendment modified several fundamental rights, primarily affecting Articles 19, 15, and 31. A major issue was highlighted in State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan11, where the
Supreme Court struck down a communal quota system for medical college admissions, citing Article 29(2). In response, the First Amendment added Article 15(4), allowing the state to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Tribes, though it did not mandate reservations. Another key change was to Article 19(2), which expanded the grounds for restricting free speech by introducing "reasonable restrictions," particularly to address issues of public order, incitement to offenses, and relations with foreign states. Article 31, related to the right to property, was also modified. Nehru, critical of individual property rights, supported changes that allowed the state to acquire land without necessarily providing compensation, especially in the case of state laws.
The amendment created the Ninth Schedule, protecting certain state laws from judicial review. The amendment's validity was challenged but upheld in the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case. It also allowed for non-Indians to hold judicial positions in Indian courts. This amendment, passed shortly after the Constitution's enactment, set a precedent for future amendments.
FOURTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1955”
The Fourth Amendment of the Indian Constitution, passed in 1955, responded to some Supreme Court decisions that broadly interpreted Article 31 clauses 1 and 2. These rulings treated both clauses, despite their differing wording, as requiring compensation for any property deprivation, even if it was due to regulatory actions without the state taking possession of the property. The amendment sought to clarify the distinction between compulsory acquisition (where the state takes property and must provide compensation) and regulatory measures (where no
11 AIR 1951 SC 226
compensation is needed). The goal was to limit compensation to cases involving compulsory acquisition, leaving regulatory actions outside the court’s jurisdiction on this matter. Some argued that the fundamental right to property should be reserved for the disadvantaged, as the wealthy often use their power to deprive the weaker class of their rights. The rich, it was claimed, could protect their interests without needing this right, whereas the poor needed it to safeguard their property. The amendment had two main objectives: first, to ensure compensation only in compulsory acquisition cases, and second, to make the legislature, not the courts, the final authority on compensation.
It added provisions to prevent courts from questioning compensation adequacy and exempted situations where property ownership or possession didn’t transfer to the state from being considered compulsory acquisition, thus reducing compensation obligations. Additionally, seven more laws were added to the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review.
CONSTITUTION SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1964”
The Seventeenth Amendment Act of 1964 further changed property rights in India. A key issue was that the definition of "estate" varied across states, especially after the reorganization of states. To address this, the amendment modified the definition of "estate" and included more state laws under Schedule IX, which protects them from judicial review. Article 31A was amended to ensure that if the state acquires land held for personal cultivation, within the legal ceiling limit, the state must pay fair compensation. Additionally, laws related to such acquisitions would not be invalid, even if they violated Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The amendment also added 44 more laws to the Ninth Schedule, further weakening the right to property.
CONSTITUTIONAL TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1971”
This amendment further changed property rights by replacing the term "compensation" with "amount." It aimed to overcome legal challenges that hindered the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy. The amendment introduced Article 31C, prioritizing Directive Principles over Fundamental
Rights in matters related to property. Article 31C specifically ensured that no law made to enforce parts (b) and (c) of Article 39 would be invalid, even if it conflicted with Fundamental Rights. Additionally, policies enacted to enforce these Directive Principles could not be challenged in court. The substitution of "compensation" with "amount" was a key aspect of this amendment.
FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976”
Indira Gandhi's government faced public disillusionment after the 1971 elections due to unfulfilled promises, despite her leftist reforms like bank nationalization and the abolition of privy purses. Opposition, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, grew stronger, especially after the Allahabad High Court invalidated her election. In response, Gandhi declared a state of emergency, leading to the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, influenced by the Swaran Singh report. The 42nd Amendment brought several key changes: - Added "socialist" and "secular" to the Preamble, and replaced "unity" with "unity & integrity. " - Created administrative tribunals and reduced the High Court's power over them. - Removed civil servants' right to representation to expedite inquiries.
- Amended Article 31C to protect all laws aimed at enforcing Directive Principles from being invalidated, expanding on the 25th Amendment, which only covered parts (b) and (c) of Article 39. - Substituted Article 39(f) to ensure opportunities for children to grow in dignity, free from exploitation. - Added Article 48A on environmental protection and Article 43A on worker participation in management. - Introduced Fundamental Duties in Part IVA. - Amended Article 74 to make the President act based on the advice of the Prime Minister and the council of ministers.
Controversially, the amendment also drastically altered judicial review and Article 368. By adding clauses 4 and 5, it made Parliament's power to amend the Constitution unlimited, even allowing amendments to Fundamental Rights. This sparked criticism, as it sought to limit the courts' ability to review amendments. “In the Minerva Mills case12, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, ruling that the power to amend the Constitution is limited by the basic structure doctrine. The amendment's attempt to restrict judicial review and expand Parliament's amending power was declared unconstitutional, as the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a core part of the Constitution's basic structure.”
FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
After Indira Gandhi’s assassination, Rajiv Gandhi came to power with public sympathy, but Congress began losing its dominance as smaller party alliances (SVDs) gained power. However, frequent defections due to party-switching for personal gain led to a demand for an anti-defection law, which was introduced as the Tenth Schedule through the 52nd Amendment in 1985. The law aimed to prevent unethical defections motivated by political or material gain and strengthen Indian parliamentary democracy. Rajiv Gandhi called it the "first step towards cleaning up public life. " The law established that elected or nominated members of Parliament would be disqualified for defecting from their party. Independent members who joined a party after their election would also face disqualification.
Initially, the decision on disqualification lay with the presiding officer of the house, whose decision was final and not subject to judicial review. However, in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that this provision was unconstitutional and held that the presiding officer's decision could be reviewed by the courts, as they functioned as tribunals. While hailed as a bold step towards cleaning up politics, the anti-defection law has revealed many flaws:
1. It does not distinguish between dissent and defection, disqualifying members even for
12 AIR 191980 SC 1789
disagreeing with their party's stance.
2. Richer parties can still buy votes from smaller ones, while the reverse is not possible.
3. It permits "splits" (when one-third of party members defect) and "mergers" (when twothirds of members join another party) but bans individual defections.
4. Disqualified members are not replaced, leading to vacant seats in the house.
5. It doesn’t provide for expulsion of members for activities outside the legislature.
6. Decision-making authority is given to the presiding officer, raising concerns over
impartiality and lack of legal expertise. This law, while intended to address defections, has been criticized for its limitations, leading to calls for reform. 73rd & 74th CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, 1992 “The 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts of 1992 were introduced to implement Article 40 of the Constitution, focusing on the establishment of Panchayati Raj for rural areas and Municipal Corporations for urban areas. These amendments aimed to decentralize power, allowing local self-governance and giving panchayats the authority to levy taxes for their functioning. Several committees, including those led by Balwant Rai, K. Santhanam, and Ashok Mehta, had recommended decentralization. The Constitution granted the governor authority to set up finance commissions to review the financial standing of these local bodies.
” Despite this, the concept of panchayati raj was not part of the original draft of the Constitution. Prominent figures like Dr. Rajendra Prasad, MA Ayangar, and NG Ranga criticized this omission, advocating for village panchayats as the core of Indian democracy. They believed that the Constitution should be rooted in traditional Indian governance structures rather than Western models. Eventually, BR Ambedkar incorporated Article 40 into the Directive Principles of State Policy after much debate. Following these amendments, states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan passed laws to establish panchayati systems. However, despite their constitutional establishment,
panchayats often lack the necessary financial and functional power to fully perform their roles. The state finance commissions, which support the functioning of panchayats, also need more strength and transparency in implementing their recommendations. On a broader level, concerns were raised about the fitness of elected representatives, and some argued for either raising the voting age back to 21 or linking voting rights to qualifications, to avoid uninformed decisions. It was suggested that the 61st Amendment, which lowered the voting age, may not have been the best choice, and more efforts are needed for effective decentralization and democratic efficiency.
EIGHTY FIFTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
The concept of reservations in promotions was first allowed in the Southern Railway v. Rangachari case, leading to the introduction of the 77th Amendment Act of 1995. This amendment added Article 16(4A) to the Constitution, allowing for reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in public employment. This was in response to the *Indra Sawhney* case, where the Supreme Court ruled that reservations should only apply to appointments and not to promotions. The government justified the amendment by stating that SCs and STs had not achieved sufficient representation in state services, and therefore, the existing policy of reservation in promotions needed to be continued. The *R. K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab* case in 1995 further introduced a roster system to ensure that reserved seats did not exceed the required percentage when filled.
The 85th Amendment in 2001 brought in the concept of "consequential seniority" in promotions, sparking a conflict between the judiciary and legislature. The judiciary was initially against this concept, but the amendment allowed reserved category employees to maintain seniority even after being promoted before general category employees. This system resulted in situations where general category employees lost seniority over their reserved counterparts, even if they were initially more experienced. This shift created disparities in seniority between general and reserved candidates, with the former losing years of service advantage.
NINTY-NINTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2014
The debate over the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) in India began in the early 21st century, aiming to replace the opaque collegium system for appointing judges to higher courts. The NJAC Act of 2014 amended Article 124(2) and added Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C to the Constitution. It replaced the requirement for consultation with judges with recommendations from the NJAC, which included the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges, the law minister, and two eminent persons, one of whom had to represent marginalized groups such as women or scheduled castes or tribes. “The NJAC was designed to recommend appointments and transfers of judges, but it sparked controversy. Critics argued that the inclusion of executive members with veto power undermined judicial independence by giving too much control to the government.
This was seen as a violation of the Constitution’s basic structure, particularly the independence of the judiciary. As a result, the NJAC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court for infringing upon judicial primacy in appointments. ”
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
“India, with its large agricultural population and fertile lands, faced challenges during its colonial era due to various land revenue systems, particularly the Zamindari system. This system caused exploitation and harassment of farmers. After gaining independence, abolishing Zamindari became a priority to align with the socialistic ideals envisioned by the Constitution's framers. Parliament introduced land reforms, but these faced legal challenges, as many believed their fundamental rights were being violated. ” “In 1951, the first significant constitutional challenge arose in Kameshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar13, where the Bihar Land Reforms Act was declared unconstitutional by the Patna High Court for violating the right to property. To counter this, Parliament passed the First Amendment Act of 1951, introducing Articles 31A and 31B.
Article 31A allowed the state to acquire property without being challenged under fundamental rights, while Article 31B created the Ninth Schedule to protect certain laws from judicial scrutiny. ”
13 “AIR 1951 para 91
The validity of this amendment was upheld in Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India14 (1951), where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the ability to modify fundamental rights. This decision was reaffirmed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan15 (1965), though dissenting opinions by Justices Mudholkar and Hidayatullah hinted at the development of the basic structure doctrine. ” “In IC Golak Nath v. State of Punjab16 (1967), the Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, reversed earlier rulings, holding that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The court argued that Article 368 provided only the procedure for amendments and that constitutional amendments fell under ordinary law, thus subject to Article 13(2), which prohibits laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
However, the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling was applied to avoid disrupting past amendments, and the court allowed land reforms to proceed. ” “Following this, the 24th and 25th Amendments were passed to override Golak Nath. These amendments clarified Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, and made the President’s assent to amendments mandatory. ” “In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala17 (1973), a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure. The court identified key features, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic and secular nature of the government, the separation of powers, and judicial review, as essential to the Constitution. “This doctrine was further reinforced in subsequent cases like Raj Narain v.
Indira Gandhi (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India 18(1980). In the latter case, the Supreme Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that aimed to limit judicial review and expand Parliament's power. The court emphasized the harmonious balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy). ”
14 Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458.
15 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
16 IC Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643: 1967(2) SCR 762”
17 “Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
18 Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
“In Waman Rao v. Union of India19(1981), the court upheld the immunity of laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before April 24, 1973 but subjected later additions to judicial review based on the basic structure doctrine. The basic structure doctrine has since been reaffirmed in several cases, safeguarding the Constitution from amendments that could fundamentally alter its core principles.”
CHALLENGES AND RISKS OF FREQUENT AMENDMENTS
Constant changes can make the legal and political system unstable. Citizens, businesses, and government agencies may struggle to keep up with new laws, causing confusion and uncertainty. If amendments happen too often, the constitution may lose its special status as a stable, foundational document. It might start to be seen as just another set of easily changeable rules. People may lose confidence in the government's ability to maintain longterm, stable governance if the rules are always changing. Frequent amendments can be driven by short-term political goals rather than the public's long-term interests. This may result in changes that favor those in power. In some cases, amendments can weaken or remove rights that citizens depend on. If not properly debated and considered, these changes could harm individuals' freedoms.
A constitution that is frequently amended can become overly complicated and harder to understand, making it less accessible to ordinary people. Constant changes might lead to disagreements or divisions within the country, as different groups push for amendments that reflect their own interests.
CONCLUSION
Constitutional amendments play a vital role in ensuring that a nation’s legal framework remains dynamic and responsive to evolving societal, economic, and political challenges. In India, where the Constitution has been amended numerous times, this process has helped shape the country’s democratic landscape, allowing it to address various social injustices, ensure equal rights, and promote development. However, while the ability to amend the Constitution provides flexibility, frequent amendments also pose significant challenges and risks. The frequent amendment of constitutional provisions can lead to legal and political instability. As laws and frameworks shift rapidly, it becomes difficult for citizens, businesses, and government institutions to keep pace, leading to confusion and inconsistency in
19 Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981, 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1”
governance. This instability can, in turn, erode public confidence in the political system, as the constitution—intended to be a stable and foundational document—may start to lose its perceived sanctity and appear as a mere set of changeable rules. Over time, this could undermine the authority of the Constitution itself, leading to weakened rule of law and unpredictable governance. Another critical concern is the potential for political manipulation. Frequent amendments, especially those driven by short-term political interests, can be used by ruling parties to consolidate power or weaken checks and balances. This not only threatens the democratic process but can also allow governments to pass amendments that favor their own interests at the expense of the public good.
Historically, some amendments, such as those passed during periods of political emergency, have been used to curtail freedoms and reduce the independence of key institutions like the judiciary. The frequent modification of the Constitution can result in the erosion of fundamental rights. When amendments are enacted hastily or without sufficient debate, they may harm essential rights and freedoms. Citizens may lose protections that are vital to their personal liberty and security, and this could lead to increased public dissent and disillusionment with the government. Complexity is another challenge associated with frequent amendments. Over time, the Constitution may become overly intricate and difficult to interpret, making it less accessible to ordinary citizens.
A constitution that is perceived as complex and opaque can alienate people from their rights and responsibilities, reducing engagement with the democratic process and leading to misunderstandings about their legal entitlements. Frequent constitutional amendments may lead to national disunity. Different groups may push for amendments that reflect their own interests, which could result in divisive politics and regional or ideological conflicts. When various factions compete to alter the Constitution in their favor, the nation may face increased tensions and disagreements, undermining national unity and social cohesion. In balancing the need for constitutional flexibility with stability, it is essential that any amendments are carefully considered, debated, and justified by long-term societal benefits rather than short-term political goals.
The amendment process must ensure that while the Constitution evolves with the times, it also protects core democratic principles, fundamental rights, and the institutional framework that underpins governance. Ultimately, a balanced approach to constitutional amendments can preserve the integrity of the nation’s foundational legal document while allowing it to remain adaptable to changing realities.
REFERENCES
Gibs, L. (n.d.). The Comprehensive Guide to Constitutional Law. [Satvika Goyal & Vikrant Nilesh Goyal]. • Balhera, A. (2023). Amendments to Indian Constitution and Their Impact: An Assessment. IUP Law Review, 13(1). • Dixon, R., & Landau, D. (2015). Transnational constitutionalism and a limited doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment. International journal of constitutional law, 13(3), 606-638. • Narain, J. (1968). Constitutional Changes in India—an Inquiry into the Working of the Constitution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 17(4), 878-907. • Son, B. N. (2020). Constitutional Amendment and Democracy. Minn. J. Int'l L., 30, 75.