query: what is provided in article 368 of the constitution

pos: Amendment of the Constitution of India included the following: Amendment of the Constitution of India Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India. However, there is another limitation imposed on the amending power of the constitution of India, which developed during conflicts between the Supreme Court and Parliament, where Parliament wants to exercise

pos: Amendment of the Constitution of India Amendment of the Constitution of India Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India. However, there is another limitation imposed on the amending power of the constitution of India, which developed during conflicts between the Supreme Court and Parliament, where Parliament wants to exercise discretionary use of

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India possible one-t part-xx Article 368 (1) of the Constitution of India grants constituent power to make formal amendments and empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down therein, which is different from the procedure for ordinary legislation. Article 368 has been amended by the 24th and 42nd Amendments in 1971 and 1976 respectively. The following is the full text of Article 368 of the Constitution, which governs constitutional amendments. New clauses 368 (1) and 368 (3) were added by the 24th Amendment in 1971, which also

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India added a new clause (4) in article 13 which reads, "Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368." The provisions in "italics" were inserted by the 42nd Amendment but were later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in "Minerva Mills v. Union of India" in 1980. After the 24th amendment, Article 4(2), etc. of the constitution are superseded/made void by article 368 (1) which is the only procedure for amending the constitution however marginal may be the nature of the amendment. Supreme court ruled that the constituent power under article 368 must

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India representation of States in Parliament; and the provision for amendment of the Constitution laid down in article 368. Ratification is done by a resolution passed by the State Legislatures. There is no specific time limit for the ratification of an amending Bill by the State Legislatures. However, the resolutions ratifying the proposed amendment must be passed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent. Article 368 does not specify the legislative procedure to be followed at various stages of enacting an amendment. There are gaps in the procedure as to how and after what notice a

neg: Constitution of India the nation, and governs all laws. According to Article 13, Due to the adoption of the Thirty-eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court was not allowed to preside over any laws adopted during a state of emergency which infringe fundamental rights under article 32 (the right to constitutional remedies). The Forty-second Amendment widened Article 31C and added Articles 368(4) and 368(5), stating that any law passed by Parliament could not be challenged in court. The Supreme Court ruled in "Minerva Mills v. Union of India" that judicial review is a basic characteristic of the constitution, overturning Articles 368(4), 368(5) and 31C. According

neg: Part I of the Constitution of India Article 3. Article 4 is invoked when a law is enacted under Article 2 or 3 for the marginal, incidental and the consequential provisions needed for changing boundary of a state or union territory. As per , no such law framed under Article 4 (1), shall be deemed to be an amendment of the constitution for the purposes of article 368. Before 1971, there were few articles [Articles 4 (2), 169 (3)-1962, 239A (2)-1962, 244A (4)-1969, para 7(2) of Schedule V and para 21(2) of Schedule VI] other than Article 368 which permitted marginal amendments to the constitution. However Article

neg: Part I of the Constitution of India 4 (2) got superseded by the 24th amendment in the year 1971 to Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure there for). was added by 24th amendment which says that 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. Constituent power means eligibility to frame constitution and make amendments to the constitution. Supreme court observed that article 368 (1) clearly defined the scope of constituent power which is power

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India by law for the abolition or creation of the Legislative Councils in States and specifies that though such law shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the Constitution as may be necessary, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. "The Legislative Councils Act, 1957", which provided for the creation of a Legislative Council in Andhra Pradesh and for increasing the strength of the Legislative Councils in certain other States, is an example of a law passed by Parliament in an exercise of its powers under article 169. The

neg: Basic structure doctrine of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever. In the context of article 13, “law” must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power, with the result that article 13 (2) does not affect amendments made under article 368. In "Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan" (case citation: 1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933), by a majority of 3-2, the Supreme Court held, "When article 368 confers on Parliament the right to

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure meaning of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The majority did not believe there was any difference between ordinary legislative power of the parliament and the inherent constituent power of parliament to amend the Constitution. The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. Since according to Article 13(3), the parliament could not make any

neg: Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India 239A in the Constitution, gave Parliament the authority to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry. Section 4 of the Amendment provided that any law passed for this purpose would not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of article 368. Clause (1) of article 240 of the Constitution was amended to include the Union territory of Pondicherry in order to enable the President to "make regulations for the peace, progress and good government" of the territory. However, the

neg: Part I of the Constitution of India to make amendments, variations or deletions to the constitution. Constituent power conferred on the parliament must be exercised by it in accordance with the procedure given in article 368 (2) and can not be subjected to an inferior legislative procedure under article 4 or delegated to an outside agency. Thus there is only one procedure for bringing an amendment (including of marginal nature) to the constitution which is the procedure given in Article 368. However, these superseded articles [Articles 4 (2), 169 (3), 239A (2), 244A (4), 356 (1)c, para 7(2) of Schedule V and para 21(2) of Schedule VI]

neg: Preamble to the Constitution of India under the Article 368. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960 was enacted to transfer the Berubari Union to Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan). Supreme Court also held the view that Preamble cannot be a part of the constitution but later in Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the Supreme Court gave a comprehensive verdict. It said that Preamble is part of the Constitution and is subject to the amending power of the parliament as are any other provisions of the Constitution, provided the basic structure of the Constitution is not destroyed. It has been clarified by the Supreme Court of India that,

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala asserted in the Golaknath case, by ruling that the expression "amendment" of this Constitution in article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out the objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles. Applied to fundamental rights, it would be that while fundamental rights cannot be abrogated, reasonable abridgement of fundamental rights could be effected in the public interest. The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. One of the issues in this case is that whether amendments to the Constitution of India under Article 368 were applicable to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. According to Sikri CJ, reasonable curtailment of fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution of India could be carried out in the name of public interest. However these rights could not be repealed. Every provision of the Constitution was open to amendment provided the basic foundation or structure of the Constitution was not damaged or destroyed as the expression

neg: I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. there was any difference between ordinary legislative power of the parliament and the inherent constituent power of parliament to amend the Constitution. The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. Since according to Article 13(2), the parliament could not make any law that abridges the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the

neg: Basic structure doctrine amend the Constitution, the power in question can be exercised over all the provisions of the Constitution. It would be unreasonable to hold that the word "Law" in article 13 (2) takes in Constitution Amendment Acts passed under article 368." In both cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab". A bench of eleven judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala provided the basic foundation or structure of the Constitution was not damaged or destroyed. Held that the preamble to the Constitution contains the clue to the fundamentals of the Constitution. According to the learned Judges, Parts III and IV of the Constitution which respectively embody the fundamental rights and the directive principles have to be balanced and harmonised. This balance & harmony between two integral parts of the Constitution forms a basic element of the Constitution which cannot be altered. The word 'amendment' occurring in Article 368 must therefore be construed in such a manner as to preserve the power

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. The second category includes amendments that can be effected by Parliament by a prescribed ‘special majority’; and the third category of amendments includes those that require, in addition to such "special majority", ratification by at least one-half of the State Legislatures. The last two categories are governed by article 368. Ambedkar speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 17 September 1949, pointed out that there were "innumerable articles in the Constitution" which left matters subject to laws made by Parliament. Under article 11, Parliament may make any provision relating to

neg: Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 any other provision of the Constitution of India to divide a state except by an appropriate amendment of the Constitution under article 368 and with the unanimous consent of the people of the affected State or States. While invoking Articles 2 & 3, the deemed constitutional amendment provision under article 4 (2) of the constitution bypassing Article 368 was said to be invalid after the 24th amendment in 1971. The law ministry of the union government considered bringing appropriate amendments (including constitutional amendments) to the Act to bring legality to it. The common high court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

neg: Basic structure doctrine to be a "basic" feature would be determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. Some of the features of the Constitution termed as "basic" are listed below: The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments was that no part of the Constitution was unamendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In "Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India" (AIR. 1951 SC 458), the Supreme Court unanimously held, "The terms

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India Bills apply, subject to the requirements of article 368. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business make certain specific provisions regarding amendment bills in the Lok Sabha. They relate to the voting procedure in the House at various stages of such Bills, in the light of the requirements of article 368; and the procedure before introduction in the case of such Bills, if sponsored by Private Members. Although the "special majority", required by article 368 is prima facie applicable only to the voting at the final stage, the Lok Sabha Rules prescribe adherence to this constitutional requirement at all

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India to amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, thereby bringing Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure. The "Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971" (Bill No. 105 of 1971) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 28 July 1971 by H.R. Gokhale, then Minister of Law and Justice. The Bill sought to amend articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill is given below: The Bill was considered by the Lok Sabha on 3 and 4

neg: Basic structure doctrine of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. The "basic features" principle was first expounded in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the case of "Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan". He wrote, In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab". It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III

neg: Nanabhoy Palkhivala the basic structure or inner unity of the Constitution. The court propounded what has come to be known as "the basic structure" doctrine, which rules that any part of the Constitution may be amended by following the procedure prescribed in Article 368, but no part may be so amended as to "alter the basic structure" of the Constitution. In 1975, shortly after the imposition of the Indian Emergency, a bench of 5 judges was hastily assembled, and presided over by Chief Justice A.N. Ray to determine the degree to which amendments installed by the government of Indira Gandhi were restricted

neg: Basic structure doctrine the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any

neg: Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India for a Utopia are being fed by a spate of legislation conferring legislative Power. For whose benefit is this? Is it for the political party in power or for the people?" Ramamchandran argued that making Parliament supreme would not ease the difficulties of the people, and that what really mattered to the common man was how Parliament would protect him in the matter of and safeguarding his Fundamental Rights. He further questioned the Congress government's claim that Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, asking, "where was this 'Constituent Power' when Article 368 was originally framed? If it did

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India the parliament, should be invalid. The Supreme Court declared in the case ‘A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981’ that the article 368(1) clearly defines constituent power as 'the power to amend any provision of the constitution by way of an addition, variation or repeal'. it reiterated that constituent power must be exercised by the parliament itself in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 368. The Court upheld Section 2(a) and 2(b), and the first part of section 3 of the 25th Amendment as valid. However, the second part namely "and

neg: Basic structure doctrine Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights. Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao writing for the majority held that: Six years later in 1973, the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges, heard arguments in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala" (case citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461). The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure "amendment of this Constitution", in Article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the preamble, made in order to carry out the basic objectives of the Constitution. This case is the landmark case that outlined the Doctrine of Basic Structure. Initially, this doctrine is rejected by the Malaysian courts. The general reasons this doctrine was rejected include that the Federal Constitution and the Constitution of India have many differences, especially regarding the presence of a Preamble. Next, the wording of the Federal Constitution, that is in Article 159

neg: I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. new judicial decisions, by the adoption of an alternative discretionary device to be employed in appropriate cases. So, the basic characteristics of the above doctrine are the flexibility of content and fitfulness of occurrence. Parliament passed the 24th Amendment in 1971 to abrogate the Supreme Court judgement. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away

neg: Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India unrestrained power to amend any parts of the Constitution, without judicial review. This essentially invalidated the Supreme Court's ruling in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala "in 1973. The amendment to article 368, prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any Court on any ground". It also declared that there would be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment also restricted the power of the courts to issue stay orders or injunctions. The 42nd Amendment revoked the courts' power to determine what constituted an office of profit. A

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India Parliament by a simple majority such as that required for the passing of any ordinary law. The amendments under this category are specifically excluded from the purview of article 368 which is the specific provision in the Constitution dealing with the power and the procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. Article 4 provides that laws made by Parliament under article 2 (relating to admission or establishment of new States) and article 3 (relating to formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States) effecting amendments in the First Schedule or the Fourth Schedule and

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India down in article 368, in case the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to article 368. The only other provision for constitutional changes by state legislatures is to initiate the process for creating or abolishing Legislative Councils in their respective legislatures, and to give their views on a proposed Parliamentary bill seeking to affect the area, boundaries or name of any State or States which has been referred to them under the proviso to Article 3. However, this referral does not restrict Parliament's power to make any further amendments of the

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void." The Court also ruled that

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India citizenship notwithstanding anything in article 5 to 10. Thus, by passing ordinary laws, Parliament may, in effect, provide, modify or annul the operation of certain provisions of the Constitution without actually amending them within the meaning of article 368. Since such laws do not, in fact, make any change whatsoever in the letter of the Constitution, they cannot be regarded as amendments of the Constitution nor categorized as such. Other examples include Part XXI of the Constitution—"Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions" whereby "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" power is given to Parliament to make laws with respect to certain matters

neg: Part I of the Constitution of India states that parliament can also amend the constitution by normal legislation under , Article 248 and entry 97 of union list in the seventh schedule. In 1973, this verdict was over ruled or made invalid by the later judgement of Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case where it is made clear that constitutional amendments are to be enacted under its constituent power only as per procedure given in Article 368 and no other article or provision of the constitution is applicable. However, in the case of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the bill sent by the President to the state

neg: Article 35A of the Constitution of India 35-A, the Jammu and Kashmir state Government in November 2015, prepared a report which read, "though Article 368 has been applied to State of Jammu and Kashmir, that would not curtail power of President under Article 370 to amend any provision of Constitution of India in its application to Jammu and Kashmir”. It termed the PIL against the article as “legally misconceived, untenable and meritless”. In January 2017, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti of PDP has commented that anybody raking up Article 370 & Article 35 A repeatedly, is hurting the soul of Kashmir. Vowing to

neg: J. R. Mudholkar – September 1960 and was acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court during August – September 1960. He was amongst the first Indian Supreme Court justices to proclaim the notion that later became known as the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. In his separate concurring judgment agreeing with the majority to dismiss the petition of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Mudholkar averred, somewhat hesitatingly, that constitution had certain "basic features" that cannot be amended by Parliament through its amending powers under Article 368: "Before I part with this case I wish to make it clear that what

neg: Manuel Zelaya was legally valid according to the 1982 Constitution. Article 373 of the Constitution states that the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the normal National Congress. Only eight articles cannot be amended in this fashion; they are specified in Article 374 of the Constitution and include term limits, system of government that is permitted, and process of presidential succession. Because the congress can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, some observers charged that Zelaya's true intention of holding a referendum on convening a constitutional convention on the same date as his successor's election was

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India supplemental, incidental and consequential matters, shall not be deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. For example, the "States Reorganisation Act, 1956", which brought about the reorganization of the States in India, was passed by Parliament as an ordinary piece of legislation. In "Mangal Singh v. Union of India" (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 944), the Supreme Court held that power to reduce the total number of members of Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed under article 170 (1) is implicit in the authority to make laws under article 4. Article 169 empowers Parliament to provide

neg: I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. The issues involved were whether Amendment is a “law” under the meaning of Article 13(3)( a), and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. The judgement reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court, by thin majority of 6:5, held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The majority did not believe

neg: Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act, 1969, inserted new article 244A in the Constitution to empower Parliament to enact a law for constituting an autonomous State within the State of Assam and also to provide the autonomous State with Legislature or a Council of Ministers or both

neg: Federalism in India However, many provisions in the constitution outside these lists permit parliament or state legislative assembly to legislate. Excluding the provisions of the constitution outside these lists per , the power to legislate on such subjects, rests with the parliament exclusively per Article 248. Parliament shall legislate on residuary subjects following the Article 368 procedure as constitutional amendments. In case the above lists are to be expanded or amended, the legislation should be done by the Parliament under its constituent power per with ratification by the majority of the states. Federalism is part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution

neg: Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on 28 December 1962, and came into force on the same date. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" on 29 December 1962. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, incorporated Pondicherry

neg: Forty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India into effect from 25 January 1980. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: Forty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Forty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980, extended the period of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and representation of the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha

neg: Ninety-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Ninety-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Ninety-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2009, extended the period of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and representation of the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies for another ten years, i.e. up to 26 January

neg: Article 74 of the Constitution of India Article 74 of the Constitution of India Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of India provides for a Council of Ministers which shall aid the President in the exercise of his functions. Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advises tendered after such reconsideration. (This para is added by the Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India in the year 1978) (2) The question if any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President

neg: Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India was notified in "The Gazette of India" on the same date. It retroactively came into effect on the date on which the Bill for this amendment Act was introduced in the Rajya Sabha (i.e., 20 December 1989). The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India The Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala deemed constitutional amendments under legislative powers of the parliament, should be invalid. The Supreme Court declared in the case ‘A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December 1981’ that the article 368(1) clearly defines constituent power as 'the power to amend any provision of the constitution by way of an addition, variation or repeal'. it reiterated that constituent power must be exercised by the parliament itself in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 368. The government of Indira Gandhi did not take kindly to this implied restriction on its powers by the court.

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India a Latin phrase, which in law, describes someone taking precautions against a very remote contingency. By strictly adhering to article 368, the provision is intended to ensure the validity of the procedure adopted, but also guard against the possibility of violation of the spirit and scheme of that article 29 by the consideration of a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution including its consideration clause by clause being concluded in the House with only the bare quorum present. Voting at all the above stages is by division. However, the Speaker may, with the concurrence of the House, put any group

neg: Seventy-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President K. R. Narayanan on 21 January 2000, and was notified in "The Gazette of India" on the same date. The 79th Amendment came into force on 25 January 2000. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: Seventy-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Seventy-ninth Amendment of the

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala the Constitution of India cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgement of those rights could be effected in public interest. There is a limitation on the power of amendment by necessary implication which was apparent from a reading of the preamble and therefore, according to the learned Chief Justice, the expression "amendment of this Constitution", in Article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the preamble, made in order to carry out the basic objectives of the Constitution. Accordingly, every provision of the Constitution was open to amendment

neg: Constitution of Singapore "Amendment" connotes a change to the existing law that does not amount to doing away with such a law entirely. On the other hand, "repeal" implies the abrogation of the entire law by a different statutory provision that subsequently comes into force. If Parliament is entitled to repeal provisions of the Constitution, this means there is no constitutional hindrance to substituting the current Constitution for a completely different and new one. Thus, this suggests there is no place for the basic features doctrine in constitutional amendments. Similarly, Article 368(1) of the Indian Constitution, which was brought in by the Twenty-fourth

neg: Constitution of India president cannot promulgate ordinances under his legislative powers under . Deemed amendments to the constitution which can be passed under the legislative powers of parliament were invalidated by Article 368(1) in the Twenty-fourth Amendment. By July 2018, 124 amendment bills had been presented in Parliament; of these, 101 became Amendment Acts. Despite the supermajority requirement for amendments to pass, the Indian constitution is the world's most frequently-amended national governing document. The constitution is so specific in spelling out government powers that many amendments address issues dealt with by statute in other democracies. In 2000, the Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India far as it may be applicable consistently with the express provisions of article 368, when they entrusted to it power of amending the Constitution." Hence, barring the requirements of special majority, ratification by the State Legislatures in certain cases, and the mandatory assent by the President, a Bill for amending the Constitution is dealt with the Parliament following the same legislative process as applicable to an ordinary piece of legislation. The Rules of the House in the Rajya Sabha do not contain special provisions with regard to Bills for the amendment of the Constitution and the Rules relating to ordinary

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him. The 24th Amendment was enacted, by the Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi, to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in "Golaknath v. State of

neg: Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud wrote: On Section 4, Chandrachud wrote, "Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features.

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India day in the history of democracy". Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah (previous Chief Justice of India) remarked that "this was an attempt of not creating 'forward looking judges' but 'judges looking forward' to the office of Chief Justice". The government enacted the 42nd Amendment in 1976, to abrogate the Kesavananda Bharati ruling. Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India and passed on 11 August 1971. The debate in the Rajya Sabha was brief. The bill received assent from then President Varahagiri Venkata Giri on 5 November 1971. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" and came into force on the same day. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: "The Hindu", in its editorial on 6 August 1971,

neg: Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India and clause 4 (amending article 286) were adopted in their original form. The Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was considered and passed by the Rajya Sabha on 31 May 1956. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President Rajendra Prasad on 11 September 1956. It was notified in "The Gazette of India", and came into force on the same date. The Bill was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by the Legislatures of more than one-half of the States specified in Parts A and B

neg: Mohammed El Senussi what has been provided in Article 40, sovereignty shall be vested by the nation in trust with the King Mohammed Idris el Mahdi el Senussi and after him to his male heirs, the oldest after the oldest, degree after degree Article 45 of the 1951 Constitution states: the Throne of the Kingdom is hereditary in accordance with the two Royal Orders promulgated on 22nd of Safar 1374 H., and the 25th of Rabi'e el-Thani 1376 H., respectively. Each of these two Orders regulating the succession to the Throne shall have the same forces as an article of this Constitution. However,

neg: Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India 17 December, and passed on 17 December 1969. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President V. V. Giri on 23 January 1970. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" and came into force on 23 January 1970. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" on 6 January 1960. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did

neg: Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India 8 December 1971. The bill received assent from then President Varahagiri Venkata Giri on 20 April 1972. It was notified in "The Gazette of India", and came into force on the same day. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. The only states that did not ratify the amendment were Manipur and Rajasthan. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Legal expert V.G. Ramachandran, writing in the Supreme Court Cases

neg: Forty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India passed by the Rajya Sabha (Council of the States) on 23December 1977. The bill, after ratification by the states, received assent from President of India, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, on 13April 1978. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" and came into force on the same date. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the state legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: The 43rd Amendment repealed sixarticles31D, 32A, 131A, 144A, 226A

neg: Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India clause 2, and the bill was considered and adopted by the Rajya Sabha on 7 December 1959. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President Rajendra Prasad on 5 January 1960, came into force on the same date. It was notified in "The Gazette of India" on 6 January 1960. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not

neg: Joint Session of Indian Parliament the Houses of Parliament after expiry of the above period. Therefore, a requirement to summon a joint session can never arise in the case of money bill. 2. Constitution Amendment Bill Article 368 of Indian constitution require that constitution of India can be amended by both houses of parliament by 2/3 majority(special majority) . In case of disagreement between both houses, there is no provision to summon a joint session of parliament. Joint session of Indian parliament has been called for only 3 bills i.e. dowry prohibition act, 1960, banking service commission act, 1977 and POTA, 2002 . BILLS PASSED

neg: Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India effect from 1 February 1977 and Section 27 from 1 April 1977. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: Did not ratify: The amendment removed election disputes from the purview of the courts. The amendment's opponents described it as a "convenient camouflage". Second, the amendment transferred more power from the state governments to the central government, eroding India's federal structure. The third purpose

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure that the 1953 Act denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold properties and practice any profession under Articles 19 (f) and 19 (g). They also petitioned that the Act denied them the constitutional rights of equality before and equal protection of the law under Article 14. Finally, they sought that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of India, which placed the 1953 Act in the ninth schedule, to be declared "ultra vires". By a thin majority of 6:5, the Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary 'law' within the

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India article 368 was debated before the Supreme Court in "Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu "(AIR 1993 SC 412), in which the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution inserted by the 52nd Amendment in 1985 was challenged. The decisions of the Speakers/Chairmen on disqualification, which had been challenged in different High Courts through different petitions, were heard by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The case, now popularly known as Anti-Defection case, was decided in 1992. The Constitution Bench in its majority judgement upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule

neg: Preamble to the Constitution of India being a part of the Constitution, the Preamble can be subjected to Constitutional Amendments exercised under article 368, however, the basic structure cannot be altered. The preamble has been amended only once so far. On 18 December 1976, during the Emergency in India, the Indira Gandhi government pushed through several changes in the Forty-second Amendment of the constitution. A committee under the chairmanship of Sardar Swaran Singh recommended that this amendment be enacted after being consulted to study the question of amending the constitution in the light of past experience. Through this amendment, the words "socialist" and "secular" were added

neg: Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law." Citizenship rights created by Article 2 of the Constitution have therefore since been severely diluted. All of this cuts across what, on an isolated reading of Article 2, might suggest that Article 2 confers the right to citizenship on all persons born in Northern Ireland. The changes to Article 2 represent a stricty qualified provision in the Belfast Agreement recognizing: the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm

neg: Nanabhoy Palkhivala 7–6, that Article 368 of the Constitution "does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.". In the process it overruled a decision of a Special Bench of 11 Judges, by a majority of 6–5, on 27 February 1967, that "Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights" ("I.C. Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab", AIR 1967 S.C. 1643, (1967) 2 SCJ 486) by stating that no specific provision of the Constitution was immune to amendmnent, but no amendment could violate

neg: Lawmaking procedure in India simple majority) after the 24th amendment The legislative power of the states and the Centre are defined in the constitution and these powers are divided into three lists. The subjects that are not mentioned in any of the three lists are known as residuary subjects. Subject to the provisions in the constitution elsewhere, the power to legislate on residuary subjects, rests with parliament or state legislative assembly as the case may be per . Deemed amendments to the constitution which could be passed under legislative powers of Parliament, are no more valid after the addition of Article 368 (1) by

neg: Dillon v. Gloss Dillon v. Gloss Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the authority given it by Article V of the Constitution, Congress, when proposing a constitutional amendment, may fix a definite period for its ratification, and further, that the reasonableness of the seven year period, fixed by Congress in the resolution proposing the Eighteenth Amendment is beyond question. Additionally, the Court, upon taking judicial notice that the Eighteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution on January 16, 1919, when its ratification in the state legislatures

neg: Lawmaking procedure in India Lower House or the Vidhan Sabha and not mandatory to be passed in the Upper House or the Vidhan Parishad. For states with unicameral legislatures, laws and bills need to be passed only in the state's Vidhan Sabha, for they don't have a Vidhan Parishad. The process of addition, variation or repeal of any part of the constitution by the Parliament under its constituent powers, is called amendment of the constitution. The procedure is laid out in Article 368. An amendment bill must be passed by each House of the Parliament by a majority of the total membership of that

neg: Constitution of India are additions, variations or repeal of any part of the constitution by Parliament. The procedure is detailed in Article 368. An amendment bill must be passed by each house of Parliament by a two-thirds majority of its total membership when at least two-thirds are present and vote. Certain amendments pertaining to the constitution's federal nature must also be ratified by a majority of state legislatures. Unlike ordinary bills in accordance with (except for money bills), there is no provision for a joint session of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to pass a constitutional amendment. During a parliamentary recess, the

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India Amendment as being too sweeping in its ambit, and of dubious legality. The Amendment was also opposed by jurists, and all surviving members of the Constituent Assembly at the time. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala" in 1973. The full text of article 13, after the 24th Amendment, is given below: The full text of article 368, after the 24th Amendment, is given below: The 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab". The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure 1973, in the landmark case of "Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala" (1973) 4 SCC 225. Although this case overruled Galak Nath's case, it also affirmed another proposition also asserted in the case, by ruling that the expression "amendment" of the Constitution in Article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad outlines of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out the objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles. Applied to Fundamental Rights, it would be that while Fundamental Rights cannot be abrogated, reasonable abridgement of Fundamental Rights could

neg: Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India not reside in Parliament then, how can it come in now; if it had that power even then in 1948-50, how was it that Article 368 did not expressly say so?" Ramachandran believed that even if the amendments were upheld by the court, it would not be justifiable to call the present Constitution as amended by the 24th and 25th Amendments as the Constitution of India, and it should instead be called "The Government of India Act, 1971". The 25th Amendment was part of a series of measures taken by Indira Gandhi to increase her power, and establish one-party rule,

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India be exercised by the Parliament in the prescribed manner and cannot be exercised under the legislative powers of the Parliament. As per the procedure laid out by article 368 for amendment of the Constitution, an amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be 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. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement

neg: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India Punjab". The judgement reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. To abrogate the ruling, the government intended to amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, thereby bringing Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure, and preventing review of those changes by the courts. The 24th Amendment came into force on 5 November 1971. The Indian press characterised the 24th

neg: Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal was intended to address this perceived lacuna in the Constitution. One question of constitutional interpretation that was highlighted during the parliamentary debates pertained to the former Article 22H which had been incorrectly inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1991 in January 1991. Article 22H(1) provided that the President might, acting in his discretion, withhold his assent to any bill passed by Parliament (other than a bill to which Article 5(2A) applied) if the bill provided for the circumvention or curtailment of the discretionary powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. At that time, Article 5(2A), which entrenched

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala The Kesavananda Bharati judgement or His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (case citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. Justice Hans Raj Khanna asserted through this doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values. The Court partially cemented the prior precedent "Golaknath v. State of Punjab", which held that constitutional amendments pursuant to Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review, by asserting that only

neg: Nanabhoy Palkhivala which attempted, among other provisions, to pass legislative judgment over the 1971 election of Indira Gandhi. Seven years later, in "Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India", [(1980) 3 SCC 625], Palkhivala successfully moved the bench to declare that clause (4) of Article 368 of the Constitution which excludes judicial review of constitutional amendments was unconstitutional. Not only did Nani Palkhivala interpret the constitution as a message of intent, he also saw it as a social mandate with a moral dimension. As he later stated in the "Privy Purse case" Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia vs Union of India, (1971)

neg: High Court of Tanzania unlimited Jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters, that is to say it shall have power over any matter not expressly provided by the law the constitution or any other law. It is also provided further under article 108(2) of the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. Such Jurisdiction is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal as stipulated under the constitution and any other written laws. In the light of article 108(2) of the constitution of the united republic and the provisions of the Judicature and Application of laws Act, the high court has original jurisdiction

neg: Article 74 of the Constitution of India as long as he has not violated the constitution (i.e. not obliging the unconstitutional advise of the ministers even after sending back for reconsideration). is applicable to the Governors of states exactly similar to Article 74(2). When cabinet ministers / meeting minutes are not supporting the advice given to the Governor, he can act in his discretion without violating the constitution. Article 74 of the Constitution of India Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of India provides for a Council of Ministers which shall aid the President in the exercise of his functions. Provided that the President may

neg: Sixty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India with "Sixty-first" in Clause 1 of the bill. The Rajya Sabha debated the bill on 16, 19 and 20 December 1988 and passed it on 20 December 1988, after adopting the amendment made by the Lok Sabha. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President Ramaswamy Venkataraman on 28 March 1989. It was notified in "The Gazette of India", and also came into force on the same date. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required

neg: Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 provides "for such a law subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in such law, and no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368." In effect, after the recommendations of the Dilip Singh Bhuria committee the Parliament passed the PESA act in 1996 to extend the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution related to Panchayati Raj to scheduled Areas with certain exceptions and modifications. The seeds of special provisions for special tracts called Scheduled Tracts or Areas which would have different laws applicable to them

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India fundamental rights resulting in violation of the basic structure of the constitution, such laws need to be invalidated". Constitutional amendments have been made to facilitate changes in the territorial extent of the Republic of India due to the incorporation of the former French colony of Pondicherry, the former Portuguese colony of Goa, and a minor exchange of territory with Pakistan. Amendments are also necessary with regard to littoral rights over the exclusive economic zone of 200 mi and the formation of new states and union territories by the reorganization of existing states. Constitutional amendment under article 368 allows peaceful division

neg: One Hundred and First Amendment of the Constitution of India the bill was referred to a Select Committee on 14 May 2015. The Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha submitted its report on the bill on 22 July 2015. The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 3 August 2016, and the amended bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 8 August 2016. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from President Pranab Mukherjee on 8 September 2016, and was notified in "The Gazette of India" on the same date. The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and

neg: Third Amendment of the Constitution of India by the Lok Sabha on 10 September and adopted on 13 September. The motion was concurred by the Rajya Sabha on 16 September 1954. The Joint Committee presented its Report to the Lok Sabha on 20 September. The Rajya Sabha passed the bill on 28 September 1954. The bill, after ratification by the States, received assent from then President Rajendra Prasad on 22 February 1955. It was notified in "The Gazette of India", and also came into force on the same date. The Bill was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified

neg: Supreme Court of New Jersey its ability to determine constitutionality. This was followed up by the federal Supreme Court's case of "Marbury v. Madison". In "State v. Post" and "State v. Van Beuren" 20 N.J.L. 368, decided together, the constitutionality of slavery in the state was challenged on the grounds that the first article of the first section of the newly passed (1844) state constitution ("All men are by nature free and independent...") precluded it. The court by two to one (with one absence), rejected this stating that "the constitution has not ... abolished slavery." Slavery was abolished nationwide by the Thirteenth Amendment to the

neg: Amendment of the Constitution of India Fifth Schedule contains provisions as to the administration and control of the Schedule Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Para 7 of the Schedule vests Parliament with plenary powers to enact laws amending the Schedule and lays down that no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. Under Para 21 of the Sixth Schedule, Parliament has full power to enact laws amending the Sixth Schedule which contains provisions for the administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. No such law will be deemed to be

neg: Adoption of the Constitution of Ireland Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, with the entire Irish Act as a schedule, to give effect to the Constitution in British law. Under the 1922 Constitution amendments were governed by Article 50. Article 50, at the time the 1937 Constitution was adopted, provided that constitutional amendments could be enacted by the Oireachtas (parliament) under the same procedure used for the adoption of ordinary laws. De Valera's government repudiated the 1922 Constitution as an unrepublican, foreign imposition and so deliberately provided that the new constitution would be adopted by in a manner outside the terms of the 1922 Constitution. There

neg: Article Five of the United States Constitution is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution, or whether there are routes to amendment, including some routes in which the Constitution could be unconsciously or unwittingly amended in a period of sustained political activity on the part of a mobilized national constituency. For example, Akhil Amar rejects the notion that Article V excludes other modes of constitutional change, arguing instead that the procedure provided for in Article V is simply the exclusive method the government may use to amend the Constitution. He asserts that Article V nowhere prevents the People themselves, acting apart from ordinary Government, from exercising their

neg: Fundamental rights in India 1973 for any incompatibility with the basic structure doctrine. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had changed of the constitution to accord precedence to the Directive Principles (earlier applicable only to clauses b & c of Article 39) over the fundamental rights of individuals. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India case, supreme court ruled that the amendment to the Article 31C is not valid and ultra vires. The Constitution originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 provided

neg: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges. The bench gave eleven separate judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others. Nanabhoy Palkhivala, assisted by Fali Nariman, presented the case against the government in both cases. Upholding the validity of clause (4) of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights also. However, the Court affirmed another proposition also

neg: President of Moldova Moldova”. According to the Article 77 of the Constitution of Moldova (1994), the President of Moldova is the head of the State and represents the State and is the guarantor of national sovereignty, independence, and the unity and territorial integrity of the nation. The Acting President of Moldova () is a person who fulfills the duties of President of Moldova when cases of incapacity and vacancy occur. It is a temporary post provided by the Constitution of Moldova. According to Article 91 of the Constitution of Moldova (1994): According to Article 89 of the Constitution of Moldova (1994): According to