Constitutional Amendment Process Under Article 368 for UPSC

By Dooit UPSC expert · 19 July 2026 · 10 min read

The constitutional amendment process is laid down in Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution. In practice there are three routes: some provisions are changed by a simple majority outside Article 368, most by a special majority of Parliament, and a few federal provisions by a special majority plus ratification by at least half the state legislatures. Once passed correctly, the President's assent is obligatory.

In thirty years of coaching, I have seen this chapter separate the ranked candidate from the also-ran more cleanly than almost any other in Polity. Everyone knows "Article 368". Very few can tell you, in order, what actually happens to a Constitution Amendment Bill from the day it is introduced to the day it becomes law — and which majority is needed at which step. That precision is exactly what Prelims tests with a single sneaky option, and what Mains rewards when you argue whether our amendment procedure is "too rigid" or "too flexible". Let us build it cleanly, the way a topper carries it into the exam hall.

Where Article 368 sits, and what it says

Article 368 is placed in Part XX of the Constitution, titled "Amendment of the Constitution". It expressly grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision" in accordance with the procedure it lays down. Remember the phrase — addition, variation or repeal — because examiners quote it directly.

Here is the subtlety that trips people up. Article 368 itself formally describes only two kinds of amendment: by special majority, and by special majority with state ratification. But the Constitution also allows several provisions to be altered by an ordinary simple majority, exactly like a normal law — and these changes are deemed to lie outside Article 368. So when a question asks "how many types of amendment does Article 368 provide?", the textbook answer is two; when it asks about the amendment procedure "in India" broadly, the answer aspirants are expected to give is three. Read the stem carefully.

The three routes to amend the Constitution

Fix this table in your memory first. Every other detail in this chapter hangs off it.

Notice what this design is doing. The rigidity rises with the importance of the provision. Housekeeping matters flex with a simple majority. The rights-and-duties core needs a demanding special majority. And the federal bargain — the deal between the Union and the states — cannot be touched by Parliament alone; the states must sign off. That graded rigidity is the single best line you can write in a Mains answer on whether our amendment procedure is balanced.

Step by step: how a Constitution Amendment Bill becomes law

Take the standard Article 368 route and walk it slowly. Each step hides a favourite Prelims trap.

1. Introduction. The Bill can be introduced in either House — Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. It does not need the President's prior recommendation (unlike a Money Bill).
2. Who can introduce. It can be introduced by a minister or by a private member. There is no requirement that only the government move it.
3. Passing in each House. The Bill must be passed in each House separately by the special majority — a majority of the total membership of that House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. There is no shortcut where one House carries the other.
4. No joint sitting. If the two Houses disagree, there is no provision for a joint sitting to break the deadlock. Both must independently pass it. (Contrast this with ordinary Bills, where Article 108 allows a joint sitting.)
5. State ratification, if required. If the Bill amends a federal provision, it must then be ratified by the legislatures of at least one-half of the states by a simple majority, before it is presented to the President. There is no time limit within which states must ratify.
6. President's assent. The Bill goes to the President, who must give assent. He can neither withhold assent nor return the Bill for reconsideration. This obligation was written in by the 24th Amendment (1971).

Which provisions need the states' consent?

This is the list examiners test most, because it is easy to half-remember. An amendment needs ratification by half the states when it seeks to change any of the following federal provisions:

• The election of the President (Articles 54 and 55).
• The extent of the executive power of the Union and of the states.
• The Supreme Court and the High Courts.
• The distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
• Any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule (Union, State and Concurrent Lists).
• The representation of states in Parliament.
• Article 368 itself — the power and procedure to amend cannot be altered without the states' consent.

A quick memory hook I give my students: think "President, powers, courts, lists, seats, and the amending power itself". If a proposed change touches the machinery that keeps the Union and the states in balance, the states get a vote. If it touches the President's election, ratification is needed — but note the states ratify by a simple majority, not a special one. That asymmetry (special in Parliament, simple in the states) is exactly the kind of detail a well-set question turns on.

The judicial fence: Parliament's power is wide, not unlimited

Getting the procedure right is only half the chapter. The other half is the limit the Supreme Court has read into Article 368. Even a perfectly passed amendment can be struck down if it wounds the Constitution's core. This is the basic structure doctrine, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot "damage, emasculate, destroy, abrogate, change or alter the basic structure".

The story behind it is worth carrying. In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) the Court held amendments could touch even Fundamental Rights. In Golaknath (1967) it reversed and said Fundamental Rights could not be amended. Parliament replied with the 24th Amendment (1971), asserting its power to amend any part. Then Kesavananda struck the balance we live with today. Later, in Minerva Mills (1980), the Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) that the 42nd Amendment had inserted to give Parliament unlimited amending power and to bar judicial review — holding that a limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure. If you want the full case-by-case treatment, read our companion guide on the basic structure doctrine for UPSC. For the underlying rights that these cases fought over, revise Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution.

Key amendments every aspirant must know

You do not need all 106 amendments by heart — the Constitution has been amended 106 times so far, one of the most amended constitutions in the world. You need the landmark ones that recur in question papers. Learn these cold:

For the 42nd and 44th Amendments especially, connect them to the political context — the 42nd was passed during the internal Emergency, and the 44th was the restoring correction after it. If you have not revised that period yet, our note on the emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution and the change the 42nd Amendment made to the Preamble will lock the linkage. This chapter sits inside the larger Polity cluster — if you are building the subject from scratch, follow our Indian Polity preparation strategy to sequence it correctly.

The mistakes that cost marks

After correcting thousands of tests, I can predict where this chapter leaks marks. Guard these:

• Confusing "half the states" with a special majority in the states. States ratify by a simple majority, not a special one, and only half of them are needed.
• Assuming a joint sitting can resolve a deadlock. It cannot — there is no joint sitting for a Constitution Amendment Bill.
• Thinking the President has a choice. Since the 24th Amendment, assent is mandatory. No veto, no return.
• Believing states can initiate an amendment. Only Parliament can. States only ratify.
• Forgetting the basic structure limit. Correct procedure does not immunise an amendment from judicial review on basic-structure grounds.

Here is the trap most aspirants fall into: they memorise "special majority" as a single number and cannot reproduce its two conditions under pressure. Say it aloud until it is automatic — majority of the total membership of the House, and two-thirds of those present and voting. Both, together, in each House. That one sentence, recalled cleanly, is worth more than a page of vague reading.

Practise this chapter the smart way

Amendment procedure is not a chapter you "understand once and leave". It is a chapter you must be able to recall fast and exactly, because the questions are precise and unforgiving. The way to build that is spaced, active recall: read it, then test yourself on the majorities and the ratification list, then revisit after a few days, then again. That is precisely how the Dooit app is built to work — plan, learn, test, revise, correct — so a chapter like this moves from "I read it" to "I can answer it in the hall". Our AI generates targeted questions on exactly the traps above and re-surfaces them until they stick. Study the logic here, then let the app keep the recall alive.

Frequently asked questions