Revision summary
Article 368 is a conferred, procedural amending power, not an extra-constitutional sovereign. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that Parliament cannot damage or destroy the basic structure. Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Forty-second Amendment clauses that tried to make amending power unlimited and non-justiciable. Limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure, so Article 368 cannot bootstrap itself into absolute power. Judicial review, democracy, secularism and federalism remain beyond destructive amendment.
Model answer
Introduction
Article 368 is the amending clause, not a licence to write a new Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that the power is limited by the Constitution’s basic structure. Expanding Article 368 itself — as the Forty-second Amendment tried to do — cannot lawfully destroy that structure, because a limited power cannot, by using itself, become unlimited.
Body
What Article 368 confers
- Article 368 sets the procedure for constitutional amendment: special majority, and ratification by half the States for specified federal provisions.
- It is a constituent power in the sense that it changes the Constitution, but it is still a power conferred by the Constitution, not a power that stands above it.
- I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) had treated amendments as “law” under Article 13 and frozen fundamental rights; the Twenty-fourth Amendment restored Parliament’s express power to amend Part III. Kesavananda accepted the restoring of amending power and then limited its reach.
The basic-structure limit
- The thirteen-judge Bench in Kesavananda held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
- Illustrative features later named in the case law include supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, and the essence of fundamental rights.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) struck down the Forty-second Amendment’s attempt to give Directive Principles an unlimited trump over fundamental rights and to insert Section 4 and Section 55 language that made amending power total; the Court held that limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) applied basic structure to a validation-and-election clause; later I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) held that even Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 are open to basic-structure review.
Can expansion of Article 368 destroy basic structure?
- The Forty-second Amendment inserted clauses in Article 368 claiming that there shall be no limitation on the constituent power and that an amendment shall not be called in question in any court. Minerva Mills held those clauses void.
- A power that is limited cannot enlarge itself into an absolute power by amending the clause that confers it: that would be bootstrap, which the Court rejected.
- Waman Rao, L. Chandra Kumar (1997) on judicial review of tribunals, and later benches, treated judicial review as a basic feature that Article 368 cannot take away by a clever rewording of the amending article.
- Parliament can still amend widely — including Part III, the Seventh Schedule, and the amending procedure itself — so long as identity features survive. Destruction is the prohibited act, not every large reform (for example the Goods and Services Tax amendments, or the 73rd and 74th Amendments, were not treated as destroying the structure).
The statement in one line
- The quoted statement is the law after Kesavananda and Minerva Mills: Article 368 is limited; it cannot be enlarged into absolute power; therefore Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure by expanding its amending power.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD A368[Article 368 amending power] --> K[Kesavananda basic structure] K --> M[Minerva Mills limited power is basic] F42[42nd Amendment absolute clause] --> M M --> X[Cannot destroy structure by expanding 368]
Conclusion
Parliament under Article 368 cannot destroy the basic structure by expanding that Article. Kesavananda imposed the limit; Minerva Mills held that limited amending power is itself a basic feature and struck down the Forty-second Amendment’s attempt to make Article 368 unquestionable. Expansion of the clause cannot lawfully swallow the Constitution that created it.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
"The reservation of seats for women in the institutions of local self- government has had a limited impact on the patriarchal character of the Indian Political Process." Comment.(15).
Next question in the 2019 paper (Q13). View answer →
-
Can Parliament amend Article 368 at all?
Yes, as it has done (including the 24th Amendment). It cannot use that amendment to abolish judicial review or to declare the amending power absolute, as Minerva Mills held.
-
Is every large amendment a basic-structure violation?
No. The test is whether identity features — democracy, judicial review, federalism, secularism, and the essence of rights — are destroyed, not whether the text is long.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution. -
2024 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate. -
2023 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. -
2023 · Q16 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalization of Indian Parliament? -
2022 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision ? Refer to the case laws. -
2021 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India? -
2021 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Do Department -related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for parliamentary control? Evaluate the working of such committees with suitable examples. -
2020 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
"Once a speaker, Always a speaker'! Do you think the practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of 'checks and balance'? Explain.
Separation of Powers
India does not follow a rigid American separation of powers. Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) treated the Cabinet as part of a parliamentary legislature. Articles 13, 32 and 226, charged judicial salaries, and a hard removal process are mutual checks. Kesavananda and Minerva Mills keep judicial review inside the basic structure. The design is checks and balances, not sealed branches.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
"The Central Administration Tribunal which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees, nowadays is exercising its powers as an independent judicial authority." Explain.
Governance and Policy
Article 323A and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, created the CAT for Union service disputes. The original aim was expert, speedy redress instead of a first writ in the High Court. Sampath Kumar treated a proper tribunal as a substitute forum; Chandra Kumar restored High Court review as basic structure. The CAT still hears the dispute first, with civil-court powers and reasoned orders. It is an independent judicial authority of first instance, not a ministry cell and not a sealed final court.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
What are the methods used by the Farmers organizations to influence the policy- makers in India and how effective are these methods?
Governance and Policy
Article 19 speech, assembly and association frame farmers’ methods. Protest, memoranda, elections, media and writs are the main tools. The 2021 repeal of the three farm laws shows high effectiveness of united, long agitation. Short and split protests usually win a bonus, not a stable MSP law. Tenant and women farmers remain poorly reached, so method success is real but uneven.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.