Part 20 of Indian Constitution: Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368)

Part 20 of Indian Constitution addresses the procedure for amending the Constitution. It comprises only Article 368 which lays down the method for making amendments, specifying the procedure and the kind of majority needed for different types of changes. It also affirms that Parliament holds unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution by adding, modifying, or repealing its provisions. Explore other Constitutional Articles.

Part 20 of Indian Constitution Overview

Part 20 of Indian Constitution contains a single Article that grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Article 368 of Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by -

• addition
• variation or 
• repeal of its provisions

Amendments are introduced through a bill in either House of Parliament and require a majority of the total membership and 2/3rd of those present and voting. In case of amendments affecting federal structures or state representation, ratification by at least half of state legislatures is also required. Article 368 under Part 20 of Indian Constitution excludes amendments from judicial review under Article 13 and safeguard the scope of parliamentary power in constitutional amendments. It is limited only by the Supreme Court’s “basic structure” doctrine. 

Download 5 key take aways on Part 20 of Indian Constitution Free PDF

Part 20 of Indian Constitution deals exclusively with the amendment process. It consists of a single article that outlines the Parliament’s power and procedure to amend the Constitution. Following is an overview of the component in Part 20:

Part 20 of Indian Constitution Important Case

The Basic Structure Doctrine i.e., Article 368 under Part 20 of Indian Constitution is an important judicial principle which restricts Parliament from altering the Constitution’s core framework. The following are some landmark judgments and amendments that have shaped this doctrine:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the First Constitutional Amendment and held that Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution including provisions related to fundamental rights under Article 368.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court supported the Seventeenth Amendment and confirmed the Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. Though there were dissenting opinions suggesting some constitutional elements are unchangeable.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In a major shift, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, treating constitutional amendments as “laws” subject to judicial review under Article 13.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The landmark verdict upheld Parliament’s amending power but introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that the Constitution’s fundamental framework cannot be destroyed through amendments.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 39th Amendment that aimed to bar judicial review of election disputes, reinforcing the basic structure concept.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated portions of the 42nd Amendment, affirming that judicial review is a vital part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): The Court upheld the Ninth Schedule protections for laws enacted before the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, but stated that post-1973 laws could be examined for basic structure violations.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The Court upheld 27% reservations for OBCs while limiting total reservations to 50%, reinforcing equality as a core element of the basic structure.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1993): The Court validated the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) but allowed judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions, recognizing free and fair elections and democracy as part of the basic structure.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court declared Federalism, Secularism, and Democracy as essential features of the Constitution and made the imposition of President’s Rule subject to judicial scrutiny.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Court held that even laws placed under the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they infringe upon fundamental rights or violate the Constitution’s basic structure.