Last reviewed · Written and checked by the Prelims Lab faculty · About 35 min to read
Article 368, the three kinds of amendment, the basic structure cases and the amendments UPSC asks about. Free notes for UPSC CSE Prelims 2027, written around the traps UPSC sets, with the exact text of the Constitution and every past question on the topic.
- Procedure under Article 368
- A constitution must be able to change with time, but not too easily. Article 368 (Part XX) explains how Parliament can amend (change) the Constitution.
- Three ways to amend
- Not every change is equally hard.
- The basic structure doctrine
- Can Parliament change anything in the Constitution? For years the Supreme Court and Parliament argued about this.
- Important amendments
- The Constitution has been amended more than 100 times.
How to read: each section has The idea in brief (start here if the topic is new), Exam notes (the facts UPSC tests) and Ranker’s edge (the fine points). Each section opens with the bare text of the Constitution. Open In depth for the story behind it and past questions.
1. Procedure under Article 368
Reading the text
- “Constituent power” (clause 1, added by the 24th Amendment, 1971): Parliament amends the Constitution in a different capacity from when it makes ordinary laws. That is why clause (3) says Article 13 does not apply, the textual answer to Golak Nath.
- “Addition, variation or repeal”: the three ways to amend, which UPSC asked about in 2024.
- “In either House of Parliament”: only Parliament can start an amendment. A State legislature cannot, and the President’s recommendation is not required.
- Two majorities, in each House separately: a majority of total membership, and two-thirds of those present and voting. There is no joint sitting for amendment Bills; Article 108 does not apply.
- “Shall give his assent”: since 1971 the President cannot withhold assent or return an amendment Bill.
- “Not less than one-half of the States”, by resolution, “before the Bill … is presented to the President”. The text sets no time limit.
- Clauses (4) and (5) still appear in the official text, but the footnote records that they were declared invalid in Minerva Mills (1980). They are words on paper with no legal force.
A constitution must be able to change with time, but not too easily. Article 368 (Part XX) explains how Parliament can amend (change) the Constitution.
| Where | Part XX, Article 368. Parliament may amend by way of addition, variation or repeal (PYQ 2024) |
| Introduction | Bill in either House of Parliament (not in a State legislature), by a minister or a private member; no prior permission of the President needed (PYQ 1999, 2013, 2022) |
| Majority | Each House separately: majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting. No joint sitting in case of disagreement |
| States’ ratification | For federal provisions: legislatures of half of the States, by simple majority; no time limit (PYQ 2013) |
| President | Must give assent: cannot withhold or return (24th Amendment, 1971) (PYQ 2022) |
| In detail: The amendment procedure is borrowed from South Africa. Only Parliament can initiate; State legislatures can only ask Parliament to create or abolish a Legislative Council (Article 169). | |
- Bill introducedIn either House by a minister or private member; no prior President’s sanction
- Each House passes separatelyMajority of total membership + two-thirds present and voting; no joint sitting
- Ratification if federalHalf the State legislatures, by simple majority, for provisions in the 368(2) proviso
- President’s assentMust assent (24th Amendment); cannot withhold or return
- Amendment Act in forceCan still be struck down if it violates the basic structure
| Point | Depth |
|---|---|
| “Constituent power” | 368(1), inserted by the 24th Amendment, calls the power “constituent”, to separate it from ordinary legislative power |
| No Presidential recommendation | Unlike Money Bills or Article 3 bills, an amendment bill needs no prior sanction; a private member can introduce it |
| State ratification | By resolution of half the State legislatures (simple majority), before the bill goes for assent; no time limit |
| Recent amendment bills | 129th (2024, simultaneous elections) and 130th (2025, removal of PM/CM/ministers held in custody for 30 days): with Joint Committees. 131st (2026), on an 850-seat Lok Sabha and early women’s reservation, was defeated in the Lok Sabha (17 April 2026) for want of a two-thirds majority |
In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it
The story behind it
The drafters wanted a Constitution that was neither as rigid as the American one nor as easy to change as an ordinary British law. The US Constitution has 27 amendments in over two centuries. India’s has more than a hundred in under eight decades. The three-level design, explained in the next section, is how the Assembly balanced change with protection of the federal bargain.
How UPSC asks it
- UPSC 2024 As per Article 368 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution by way of:
- Addition
- Variation
- Repeal
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
(d) 1, 2 and 3. Article 368(1): “by way of addition, variation or repeal”. - UPSC 2022 Consider the following statements:
- A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
- When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
- A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
(b) 2 and 3 only. No prior recommendation is needed. Assent is obligatory, and there is no joint sitting. - UPSC 2013 Consider the following statements:
- An amendment to the Constitution of India can be initiated by an introduction of a bill in the Lok Sabha only.
- If such an amendment seeks to make changes in the federal character of the Constitution, the amendment also requires to be ratified by the legislature of all the States of India.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(d) Neither 1 nor 2. A bill can start in either House, and ratification is by half the States, not all. - UPSC 2003 Which one of the following Bills must be passed by each House of the Indian Parliament separately by special majority?
- Ordinary Bill
- Money Bill
- Finance Bill
- Constitution Amendment Bill
Show answer
(d) Constitution Amendment Bill. Article 368: each House separately, by a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting. - UPSC 1999 An amendment to the Constitution of India can be initiated by the:
- Lok Sabha
- Rajya Sabha
- State Legislature
- President
- Only 1
- 1, 2 and 3
- 2, 3 and 4
- 1 and 2
Show answer
(d) 1 and 2. Only by a bill in either House of Parliament.
2. Three ways to amend
Reading the text: the phrase that marks a simple-majority change
Many changes to the Constitution never go through Article 368. You can spot them by one phrase: “No such law … shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.” It appears in:
- Article 4(2): creating or changing States;
- Article 169(3): creating or abolishing a Legislative Council (after a two-thirds resolution of the State Assembly);
- Paragraph 7 of the Fifth Schedule and paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule: Scheduled and Tribal Areas;
- Article 239A(2): local legislatures for certain Union Territories.
Each of these laws changes the Constitution in effect, but Parliament passes it like an ordinary law.
Not every change is equally hard. There are three levels:
| Kind | Examples |
|---|---|
| Simple majority (outside Art 368) | Admission/formation of States (Arts 2–4); creating or abolishing Legislative Councils; Second Schedule; quorum, salaries and privileges of MPs; rules of procedure; citizenship; elections and delimitation; use of English in Parliament; number of Supreme Court judges; UTs; Fifth and Sixth Schedules |
| Special majority of Parliament | Most of the Constitution: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and everything not in the other two groups |
| Special majority + half the States | Election of the President and its manner (Arts 54, 55); extent of executive power of the Union and the States (73, 162); High Courts for UTs (241); GST Council (279A); Supreme Court and High Courts; distribution of legislative powers; any List in the Seventh Schedule; representation of States in Parliament; Article 368 itself (PYQ 2025) |
| Prelims trap: Ratification needs half the States, not all. The Governor’s conditions of office (Art 158) need only a special majority, no ratification (PYQ 2025). | |
| Point | Depth |
|---|---|
| Ratification list (368(2) proviso) | Arts 54, 55, 73, 162, 241, 279A; Chapter IV of Part V (Supreme Court); Chapter V of Part VI (High Courts); Chapter I of Part XI; representation of States in Parliament (Fourth Schedule) |
| Simple-majority list traps | Fifth and Sixth Schedules (paragraph 7 and 21), Second Schedule, Article 169, quorum, privileges, SC jurisdiction enlargement, English in Parliament, Article 3–4 changes |
| Part IXB lesson | Rajendra N. Shah (2021): the 97th Amendment touched State List matters without ratification, so Part IXB fell for State co-operatives |
In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it
The story behind it
The ratification list in Article 368’s proviso protects the federal bargain: the election of the President, the reach of Union and State executive power, the courts, the Lists, and State representation in Parliament. When an amendment touches these without State ratification, it can fall. The 97th Amendment’s Part IXB on co-operatives fell for State co-operatives in Rajendra N. Shah (2021) for exactly this reason.
How UPSC asks it
- UPSC 2025 Consider the following subjects under the Constitution of India:
- List I – Union List, in the Seventh Schedule
- Extent of the executive power of a State
- Conditions of the Governor's office. For a constitutional amendment with respect to which of the above, ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States is required before presenting the bill to the President of India for assent?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
(a) 1 and 2 only. Article 368(2) proviso covers the Lists and Article 162 (extent of State executive power). The Governor’s conditions of office (Article 158) are not on the list.
3. The basic structure doctrine
Can Parliament change anything in the Constitution? For years the Supreme Court and Parliament argued about this. The final answer came in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973):
| Case / amendment | Held |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights; “law” in Article 13 does not include an amendment |
| Golaknath (1967) | Fundamental Rights cannot be taken away by amendment; an amendment is “law” under Article 13 |
| 24th Amendment (1971) | Parliament can amend any part, including Part III; Article 13(4) added; President must assent |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | 13 judges, 7:6. Parliament can amend any part but not the basic structure |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) | Struck down the clause of the 39th Amendment that put the election of the PM and Speaker beyond judicial review; free and fair elections are basic structure (PYQ 2019) |
| 42nd Amendment (1976) | Article 368(4), (5): no limit on amending power, amendments cannot be questioned in court |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Struck down 368(4) and (5): limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features |
| Waman Rao (1981) | Laws in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Ninth Schedule laws after that date can be struck down if they violate basic structure through Fundamental Rights |
| NJAC case (2015) | Struck down the 99th Amendment (National Judicial Appointments Commission) for violating judicial independence (PYQ 2019) |
| In detail, elements held to be basic structure: supremacy of the Constitution; sovereign, democratic, republican polity; secularism; federalism; separation of powers; unity and integrity; welfare State; judicial review; freedom and dignity of the individual; parliamentary system; rule of law; harmony between Parts III and IV; equality; free and fair elections; independence of the judiciary; limited amending power; effective access to justice. An amendment can be challenged in the Supreme Court and High Courts can test central laws (PYQ 2019). | |
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Sajjan Singh (1965) | Justice Mudholkar first asked whether the Constitution has “basic features” beyond amendment |
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Judicial review under Articles 32, 226, 227 is basic structure; tribunal orders reviewable by High Courts |
| Rajendra N. Shah (2021) | Part IXB (97th Amdt) valid only for multi-State co-operatives, as State ratification was not obtained |
| Janhit Abhiyan (2022) | 103rd Amendment (EWS) upheld, 3:2 |
| Basic feature | Case that recognised it |
|---|---|
| Supremacy of the Constitution; secular, federal character; separation of powers | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) |
| Free and fair elections; rule of law | Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) |
| Limited amending power; harmony of Parts III and IV; judicial review | Minerva Mills (1980) |
| Federalism, secularism, democracy | S.R. Bommai (1994) |
| Judicial review under 32 and 226 | L. Chandra Kumar (1997) |
| Independence of the judiciary | NJAC case (2015) |
| Amendment struck down (fully or in part) | Case |
|---|---|
| 25th: bar on review in 31C | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) |
| 39th: elections of PM and Speaker beyond courts | Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) |
| 42nd: 368(4), (5); extension of 31C | Minerva Mills (1980) |
| 32nd: Article 371D(5) | P. Sambamurthy (1987) |
| 52nd: Para 7 of the Tenth Schedule | Kihoto Hollohan (1992) |
| 99th: NJAC | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (2015) |
| 97th: Part IXB for State co-operatives | Rajendra N. Shah (2021) |
| Prelims trap: The 103rd (EWS) Amendment was upheld (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022), not struck down. | |
| Case | Depth |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda (24 April 1973) | CJ Sikri; Justice H.R. Khanna‘s opinion carried the majority. Each judge listed basic features differently |
| P. Sambamurthy (1987) | A clause letting the State government override tribunal orders (371D(5)) struck down: judicial review and rule of law |
| Kihoto Hollohan (1992) | Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule invalid for want of State ratification |
| M. Nagaraj (2006) | “Width” and “identity” tests: an amendment fails only if it changes the Constitution’s identity |
| Kuldip Nayar (2006) | Dropping domicile for Rajya Sabha and open ballot did not violate federalism |
| NJAC (2015) | 4:1, Justice Chelameswar dissenting; collegium revived |
In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it
The story behind it
The basic structure doctrine is not written anywhere in the Constitution. It was built by judges over a decade of conflict with Parliament.
- The seed (1965): in Sajjan Singh, Justice Mudholkar asked whether some features of the Constitution might be beyond amendment. The same year, the German scholar Dietrich Conrad lectured in India on implied limits to amending power, drawing on Germany’s experience under Hitler. Lawyers such as N.A. Palkhivala later used the idea in court.
- The decision (24 April 1973): in Kesavananda Bharati, 13 judges, the largest bench ever, held 7:6 that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion made the majority.
- The reaction: the next day three senior judges who had been in the majority were superseded, and Justice A.N. Ray, from the minority, was made Chief Justice.
- The test (1975–80): the doctrine was first used to strike down part of the 39th Amendment, on the election of the Prime Minister, in Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975). It was later used against the 42nd Amendment’s attempt to end judicial review (Minerva Mills, 1980).
There is no closed list of basic features. Courts identify them case by case, which critics call a judicial veto over the people’s representatives. Defenders point to the Emergency: without the doctrine, a Parliament with a two-thirds majority could have rewritten the Constitution without limit.
How UPSC asks it
- UPSC 2020 Consider the following statements:
- The Constitution of India defines its basic structure in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
- The Constitution of India provides for 'judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. Statement 1 is wrong: the Constitution nowhere defines the basic structure; the Supreme Court evolved it in 1973. Statement 2 is right: Articles 13, 32 and 226 provide for judicial review. - UPSC 2019 Consider the following statements:
- The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
- The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. It was the 39th Amendment (1975), not the 44th. The NJAC (99th) was struck down in 2015. - UPSC 2019 With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
- No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(d) Neither 1 nor 2. The 43rd Amendment (1977) restored High Courts’ power over central laws. Amendments can be tested against the basic structure.
4. Important amendments
The Constitution has been amended more than 100 times. Learn these key ones first:
| Amendment | What it did |
|---|---|
| 1st, 1951 | Ninth Schedule; reasonable restrictions added to Article 19; special provisions for backward classes (15(4)). Made to overcome court rulings on Fundamental Rights (PYQ 2003, 2023) |
| 7th, 1956 | States reorganisation; Part A/B/C/D abolished; raised Lok Sabha seats (PYQ 2003) |
| 31st, 1973 | Raised elected Lok Sabha seats from 525 to 545 (PYQ 2003) |
| 24th and 25th, 1971 | Amending power over Part III; Article 31C |
| 39th, 1975 | Election disputes of President, VP, PM and Speaker put beyond courts (struck down in part) |
| 42nd, 1976 | “Mini-Constitution“: Socialist, Secular, Integrity; Fundamental Duties; new Directive Principles; five subjects to the Concurrent List; President bound by ministerial advice |
| 44th, 1978 | Right to property removed from Part III; “armed rebellion” for “internal disturbance”; Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended; President can return advice once for reconsideration (PYQ 2002) |
| 52nd, 1985 | Tenth Schedule (anti-defection) |
| 61st, 1988 | Voting age 21 → 18 |
| 69th, 1991 | Special status for Delhi as the National Capital Territory (Articles 239AA, 239AB) (PYQ 2001) |
| 71st, 1992 | Added Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali to the Eighth Schedule (PYQ 2024) |
| 73rd, 74th, 1992 | Panchayats and Municipalities (PYQ 2000) |
| 75th, 1994 | State-level rent tribunals (PYQ 2001) |
| 80th, 2000 | Accepted the Tenth Finance Commission‘s scheme of tax sharing |
| 83rd, 2000 | No SC reservation in panchayats of Arunachal Pradesh |
| 86th, 2002 | Article 21A (education 6–14), new Article 45, duty 51A(k). It was introduced as the 93rd Amendment Bill (PYQ 2002) |
| 91st, 2003 | Council of Ministers capped at 15% of the Lok Sabha/Assembly (minimum 12 in States); split exception removed from the Tenth Schedule (PYQ 2007, 2009) |
| 92nd, 2003 | Added Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, Santhali: languages rise to 22 (PYQ 2008) |
| 93rd, 2005 | Article 15(5): reservation for backward classes in educational institutions, including private unaided ones (introduced as the 104th Bill) (PYQ 2006) |
| 97th, 2011 | Cooperative societies: Article 19(1)(c), 43B, Part IXB |
| 99th, 2014 | NJAC (struck down in 2015). An earlier 98th Amendment Bill (2003) had also proposed a National Judicial Commission (PYQ 2005) |
| 101st, 2016 | GST; GST Council (279A) |
| 102nd, 2018 | Constitutional status for the National Commission for Backward Classes (338B) |
| 103rd, 2019 | Up to 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (upheld in Janhit Abhiyan, 2022) |
| 104th, 2020 | Ended Anglo-Indian nominations; extended SC/ST seat reservation to 2030 |
| 105th, 2021 | Restored States’ power to make their own SEBC lists |
| 106th, 2023 | One-third seats for women in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) |
| Amendment | Depth |
|---|---|
| 15th (1963) | High Court judges’ retirement age 60 → 62 |
| 26th (1971) | Abolished privy purses of former rulers |
| 38th (1975) | Made the President’s satisfaction on emergency and ordinances non-justiciable (undone by 44th) |
| 58th (1987) | Article 394A: authoritative Hindi text |
| 65th (1990), 89th (2003) | Multi-member NCSC (338); then split into NCSC and NCST (338A) |
| 70th (1992) | Elected MLAs of Delhi and Puducherry added to the presidential electoral college |
| 84th (2001), 87th (2003) | Seat freeze till after 2026; boundaries on 2001 Census |
| 95th (2010), 104th (2020) | Extended SC/ST seat reservation to 2020, then to 2030 |
| 98th (2012) | Article 371J: Hyderabad-Karnataka (Kalyana-Karnataka) region |
| 100th (2015) | Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh |
In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it
The story behind it: amendments as a dialogue with the courts
Many major amendments were Parliament’s reply to a court ruling. Reading them as pairs makes the dates and purposes easy to recall. UPSC’s 2023 question asked which amendment was enacted to overcome the courts’ reading of Fundamental Rights.
| The court said | Parliament replied |
|---|---|
| Caste-based seats in colleges violate equality (Champakam Dorairajan, 1951); land reform violates rights (Kameshwar Singh, Patna HC, 1951) | 1st Amendment (1951): Article 15(4), Articles 31A and 31B, the Ninth Schedule, new restrictions in Article 19(2) |
| Compensation for acquired property must be a “just equivalent” (Bela Banerjee, 1954) | 4th Amendment (1955): the adequacy of compensation made non-justiciable |
| Fundamental Rights cannot be amended (Golak Nath, 1967) | 24th Amendment (1971): Articles 13(4) and 368(1), (3) |
| Bank nationalisation and abolition of privy purses struck down (R.C. Cooper and Madhav Rao Scindia, 1970) | 25th and 26th Amendments (1971): Article 31C; privy purses abolished |
| Election of the Prime Minister set aside (Allahabad High Court, 1975) | 39th Amendment (1975): elections of the PM and Speaker put beyond courts (struck down in part) |
| No reservation in promotions (Indra Sawhney, 1992) | 77th Amendment (1995): Article 16(4A) |
| No reservation in private unaided colleges (P.A. Inamdar, 2005) | 93rd Amendment (2005): Article 15(5) |
| Only the Centre can list socially and educationally backward classes after the 102nd Amendment (Jaishri Patil, 2021) | 105th Amendment (2021): States’ power to make their own lists restored |
The dialogue also runs the other way: the 99th Amendment (NJAC) was struck down by the Court in 2015, and Parliament did not reply.
How UPSC asks it
- UPSC 2024 The Constitution (71st Amendment) Act, 1992 amends the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution to include which of the following languages?
- Konkani
- Manipuri
- Nepali
- Maithili
- 1, 2 and 3
- 1, 2 and 4
- 1, 3 and 4
- 2, 3 and 4
Show answer
(a) 1, 2 and 3. The 71st added Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali. Maithili came with the 92nd (2003). - UPSC 2023 In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?
- 1st Amendment
- 42nd Amendment
- 44th Amendment
- 86th Amendment
Show answer
(a) 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment (1951) responded to rulings like Romesh Thapar and Champakam Dorairajan by adding restrictions to Article 19 and Article 15(4). - UPSC 2009 Which one of the following Constitutional Amendments states that the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed fifteen percent of the total number of members of the House of the People?
- 90th
- 91st
- 92nd
- 93rd
Show answer
(b) 91st. 91st Amendment, 2003 (Article 75(1A)). - UPSC 2008 Under which one of the following Constitution Amendment Acts, four languages were added to the list of languages under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India, thereby raising their number to 22?
- Constitution (Ninetieth Amendment) Act
- Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act
- Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Act
- Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act
Show answer
(c) Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Act. The 92nd (2003) added Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali. - UPSC 2006 What does the 104th Constitution Amendment Bill relate to?
- Abolition of Legislative Councils in certain states
- Introduction of dual citizenship for persons of Indian origin living outside India
- Providing quota to socially and educationally backward classes in private educational institutions
- Providing quota for religious minorities in the services under the Central Government
Show answer
(c) Providing quota to socially and educationally backward classes in private educational institutions. The 104th Bill became the 93rd Amendment Act, 2005 (Article 15(5)). - UPSC 2005 The Constitution (98th Amendment) Bill is related to:
- empowering the centre to levy and appropriate service tax
- the constitution of the National Judicial Commission
- readjustment of electoral constituencies on the basis of the population census 2001
- the demarcation of new boundaries between States
Show answer
(b) the constitution of the National Judicial Commission. The 98th Amendment Bill (2003) proposed a National Judicial Commission; it lapsed. - UPSC 2003 Which of the following Constitutional Amendments are related to raising the number of Members of Lok Sabha to be elected from the States?
- 6th and 22nd
- 13th and 38th
- 7th and 31st
- 11th and 42nd
Show answer
(c) 7th and 31st. The 7th (1956) and 31st (1973) Amendments raised Lok Sabha seats. - UPSC 2003 The Ninth Schedule to the Indian Constitution was added by:
- First Amendment
- Eighth Amendment
- Ninth Amendment
- Forty Second Amendment
Show answer
(a) First Amendment. The First Amendment, 1951. - UPSC 2002 Which one of the following amendments to the Indian Constitution empowers the President to send back any matter for reconsideration by the Council of Ministers?
- 39th
- 40th
- 42nd
- 44th
Show answer
(d) 44th. The 44th Amendment (1978) let the President return advice once; he must act on the advice given after reconsideration. - UPSC 2002 The 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill deals with the:
- continuation of reservation for backward classes in government employment
- free and compulsory education for all children between the age of 6 and 14 years
- reservation of 30 percent posts for women in government recruitments
- allocation of more number of parliamentary seats for recently created States
Show answer
(b) free and compulsory education for all children between the age of 6 and 14 years. The 93rd Bill became the 86th Amendment Act, 2002 (Article 21A). - UPSC 2001 Match the Amendments with their subjects: A. 69th Amendment, 1991 B. 75th Amendment, 1994 C. 80th Amendment, 2000 D. 83rd Amendment, 2000 —
- Establishment of State-level Rent Tribunals
- No reservation for SCs in Panchayats in Arunachal Pradesh
- Constitution of Panchayats in villages or at other local level
- Accepting the recommendations of the Tenth Finance Commission
- According the status of National Capital Territory to Delhi
- A-5, B-1, C-4, D-2
- A-1, B-5, C-3, D-4
- A-5, B-1, C-3, D-4
- A-1, B-5, C-4, D-2
Show answer
(a) A-5, B-1, C-4, D-2. 69th: NCT Delhi; 75th: rent tribunals; 80th: Tenth Finance Commission’s devolution scheme; 83rd: Arunachal panchayats. - UPSC 2000 The 73rd Constitution Amendment Act, 1992 refers to the:
- generation of gainful employment for the unemployed and the underemployed men and women in rural areas
- generation of employment for the able bodied adults who are in need and desirous of work during the lean agricultural season
- laying the foundation for strong and vibrant Panchayati Raj institutions in the country
- guarantee of right to life, liberty and security of person, equality before law and equal protection without discrimination
Show answer
(c) laying the foundation for strong and vibrant Panchayati Raj institutions in the country. It gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions.
5. Quick revision and traps
| Either House | Amendment bills can start in either House; never in a State legislature |
| No joint sitting | Each House must pass the bill separately |
| Half the States | Ratification for federal provisions |
| Bill number vs Act number | Bill numbers differ from Act numbers: the 93rd Bill became the 86th Act; the 104th Bill became the 93rd Act |
| Amendments that are only ordinary laws | Articles 2, 3, 4, 169, Fifth and Sixth Schedules, Second Schedule, quorum, SC judges’ number |
| Recent amendments | 101st GST (2016) · 102nd NCBC (2018) · 103rd EWS (2019) · 104th SC/ST seats to 2030 (2020) · 105th States’ OBC lists (2021) · 106th women’s reservation (2023) |
| PYQ pattern | How to prepare |
|---|---|
| Which provisions need ratification | Memorise the 368(2) proviso list |
| Amendment–content matching | Make flashcards of amendments by number; 2024 asked the 71st |
| Basic structure case chain | Shankari → Sajjan → Golaknath → Kesavananda → Indira → Minerva → Waman Rao → Coelho |