The Constitution of India
Article 368
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, 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 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, 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 (Fortysecond 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.
Why this exists
The Constitution's framers wanted it to be adaptable, not frozen in time, so they gave Parliament a formal amending power distinct from ordinary law-making. But they also built in safeguards—special majorities and state ratification for federally sensitive matters—to prevent hasty or one-sided changes. Clauses (3), (4), and (5) were added by the 24th and 42nd Amendments during the 1970s, partly in response to court rulings limiting Parliament's amending power, and partly during the Emergency era when the government sought to assert Parliament's supremacy over the judiciary.
How courts read it
In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), the Supreme Court initially held Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This was reversed in Golak Nath (1967), which said Fundamental Rights were beyond amendment. Parliament responded with the 24th Amendment (adding clauses 1 and 3) to restore its amending power over Part III. Then in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), a 13-judge bench ruled that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its 'basic structure' — core features like democracy, secularism, judicial review, and federalism. When the 42nd Amendment added clauses (4) and (5) to declare amendments immune from judicial review and unlimited, the Court struck down both clauses in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), reaffirming that judicial review and the basic structure doctrine themselves cannot be removed.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Parliament can change any part of the Constitution however it likes, since Article 368(5) says there's 'no limitation whatever' on its power.
Fact: The Supreme Court struck down this exact claim in Minerva Mills (1980), holding that Parliament's amending power is itself limited by the Constitution's 'basic structure,' which cannot be destroyed. - Myth: Amendments can never be challenged in court because of clause (4).
Fact: Clause (4) was itself declared unconstitutional in Minerva Mills; courts retain the power to review amendments that violate the basic structure doctrine. - Myth: All constitutional amendments need approval from state legislatures.
Fact: Only amendments touching specific federal matters listed in the proviso (like the Seventh Schedule or Centre-State relations) require ratification by half the states; most amendments only need Parliament's special majority.