How amendments work, and why the basic structure doctrine matters

A constitution that cannot change becomes brittle; one that can be changed too easily offers little protection. Article 368 tries to strike that balance. It gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, with different procedures for different kinds of change. Some amendments need only a special majority in Parliament — a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting in each House. Others, affecting federal provisions such as the election of the President or the powers of High Courts, also need ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures.

The key limit on that power is not written in Article 368 itself. It was developed by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), decided by a 13-judge bench by a narrow 7:6 majority. The Court held that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot destroy or damage its basic structure — its essential identity. Features identified in later case law as part of that structure include supremacy of the Constitution, democratic and republican government, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, and the rule of law.

Supporters of the doctrine argue it prevents a temporary majority from using lawful amendment to end democracy itself. Critics argue it gives unelected judges a wide power to block amendments and that its open-ended list creates uncertainty.

For students, the lesson is procedural as well as principled: ask what majority was needed, whether states had to agree, and whether the change alters an essential feature or merely updates a working rule.