Open Access Research Article
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESSES IN INDIA, UK AND USA BY: - ADV. MAITHILI KALE.
Published Paper
Article Details
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
PROCESSES IN INDIA, UK AND USA
AUTHORED BY: - ADV. MAITHILI KALE.
ABSTRACT
Constitutional amendments play a
crucial role in the evolution and adaptation of democratic governance systems.
This Article presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
constitutional amendment processes in three diverse democracies: India, the United
Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA).
The paper begins by delineating the
distinct characteristics of each country's constitutional framework and the
historical context that shaped their amendment processes. In India, the
amendment process reflects a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty
and federalism, requiring a special majority in Parliament and often involving
state ratification. Conversely, the UK's unwritten constitution allows for
relatively flexible amendments through Acts of Parliament, albeit constrained
by practical and political considerations. Meanwhile, the USA's stringent
amendment process, as detailed in Article V, emphasizes broad consensus through
proposals by Congress or a national convention and subsequent ratification by
state legislatures.
Drawing upon a wide range of legal,
historical, and political sources, the paper conducts a comparative analysis of
the strengths, weaknesses, and underlying principles of each country's
amendment process. It examines factors such as the role of federalism,
parliamentary sovereignty, judicial review, public participation, and
historical precedent in shaping the amendment mechanisms. Additionally, the
paper explores the implications of these processes on democratic governance,
the balance of power between branches of government, and the protection of
fundamental rights.
Through this comparative analysis,
the article aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of constitutional
governance in diverse democratic contexts. By highlighting similarities and
differences in the amendment processes of India, the UK, and the USA, it
provides valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners
engaged in constitutional reform, democratic institution-building, and the protection
of democratic values in the twenty-first century.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Constitutions serve
as the foundational pillars of democratic governance, providing a framework for
the distribution of power, protection of rights, and mechanisms for adaptation
to societal change. A critical aspect of constitutional governance is the
process of amending these foundational documents. This research article
undertakes a comparative analysis of the constitutional amendment processes in
three distinct democracies: India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United
States of America (USA).
India, the world's largest democracy, boasts a constitution characterized
by its detailed provisions and extensive amendment history. The amendment
process in India, enshrined in Article 368 of the Constitution, is marked by a
combination of parliamentary supremacy and federalism. Amendments require a
special majority in both houses of Parliament, with certain changes
necessitating ratification by state legislatures. This intricate process
reflects India's commitment to accommodating diverse regional interests within
its federal structure.
In contrast, the United Kingdom operates under an unwritten constitution,
relying on statutes, conventions, and judicial decisions. Constitutional
amendments in the UK occur through Acts of Parliament, reflecting the principle
of parliamentary sovereignty. While the UK Parliament possesses the authority
to amend the constitution without specific procedural hurdles, practical and
political constraints often influence the process. The flexible nature of the
UK's constitutional framework allows for adaptability but raises questions
about the stability of constitutional norms.
The United States, renowned for its system of checks and balances, features
a constitution with a deliberately complex amendment process outlined in
Article V. Constitutional amendments in the USA require proposals by either
Congress or a Through this comparative analysis, this research aims to
elucidate the strengths, weaknesses, and underlying principles of
constitutional amendment processes in India, the UK, and the USA. By examining
the nuances of these diverse frameworks, it seeks to contribute to a deeper
understanding of democratic governance, the balance of power between branches
of government, and the mechanisms for accommodating societal change while
upholding constitutional values.
II.
WHAT IS MEAN BY AMENDMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION: -
The amendment means nothing but it is
an formal or official change made to a law or other legal documents. It is based on the verb to amend,
which means to change for better. Amendments can add, remove, or update parts
of these agreements. They are often used when it is better to change the
document than to write a new one.[1]
Only the legislative branch is involved in the amendment process.
It is a crucial
process that allows the constitution to adapt to the evolving needs and
aspirations of society while maintaining its foundational principles.[2]
III. NATURE AND SCOPE OF AMENDING
PROCESS-
The Constitution of a country is the
fundamental law of the land— the basis on which all other laws are made and
enforced. It has been described as a “superior or supreme law”[3] with
“perhaps greater efficiency and authority”, and “higher sanctity”[4], and more
permanence than ordinary legislation. Nevertheless, an adequate provision of
its amendment is considered implicit in the very nature of a Constitution. A
democratic Constitution has to be particularly responsive to changing
conditions, since a Government founded on the principle of popular sovereignty,
“must make possible the fresh assertion of the popular will as that will
change”[5].
IV. RIGID OR FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTION –
Constitutions are usually classified
as ‘flexible’ or ‘rigid’ depending upon the process through which they can be
amended.[6]
Prof. A.V. Dicey defines two types of Constitutions—the flexible as ‘one under
which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease
and in the same manner by one and the same body’, and the rigid Constitutions
as ‘one under which certain laws generally known as constitutional or
fundamental laws, cannot be changed in the same manner as ordinary laws’[7].
V.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
PROCESS IN INDIA –
Law
changes according to change of time. Constitutional law of the country should
change according to the time. If it does not change, then it will be outdated,
in the wake of social, economical and political development of the country.
Provision
for amendment of the Constitution is necessary in view of the difficulties
which may encounter in the future. So, in every Constitution it is desirable to
provide a mechanism by which Constitution can be amended to serve the
contemporary needs of the people.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala,[8] Court
said that, it s necessary to change the Constitution as a fundamental law of
the country with social changes. By this, the possible danger of the overthrow
of our political institutions would be prevented.
A)
FORMAL METHODS
In India, the modes of amendment of the Constitution are
synonymous with the formal method of amendment as provided for in Article 368
of the Indian Constitution. This article lays down the procedure for amending
the Constitution and encompasses the following steps:
a)
AMENDMENT BILL INTRODUCTION –
An amendment to the
Constitution of India can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill in
either house of Parliament. The bill may be introduced either by a minister or
by any other member of Parliament. Once introduced, the bill undergoes the
standard legislative process, including debates, committee scrutiny, and
voting, as applicable to other bills.[9]
b)
APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT-
The approval by
Parliament in the formal method of amendment procedure in India involves the passage
of an amendment bill by both houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha (House of the
People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). This approval process
generally requires a special majority, as specified in Article 368 of the
Indian Constitution. The bill of amendment so initiated must be passed in each
house by a majority of the total membership[10]
However,
not all amendments require a special majority[11].
Some amendments may be passed by a simple majority of the members present and
voting in each house.
c)
RATIFICATION BY STATE [12]–
Ratification
by States is a significant aspect of the formal method of amending the
Constitution of India. It involves obtaining approval for certain amendments
from the state legislatures in addition to the parliamentary process.
·
Ratification Requirement:[13] - Article
368 [14]outlines the
procedure for amending the Constitution. While most amendments are passed
through the parliamentary process, certain amendments require ratification by
the state legislatures.
·
Procedure for Ratification: - Once an amendment bill is passed by both
houses of Parliament, it is sent to the state legislatures for ratification.
The exact number of states required for ratification varies depending on the
nature of the amendment.
·
Required Majority for Ratification: - In most cases,
ratification by a simple majority of the state legislatures is sufficient.
However, for certain amendments, such as those affecting the representation of
states in Parliament or the powers of the states, a special majority of the
state legislatures may be required.
d) PRESIDENTIAL
ASSENT –
After being
passed by Parliament and, if necessary, ratified by states, the amendment bill
is presented to the President for assent. The President's assent is mandatory
for the bill to become law and amend the Constitution.[15]
B)
INFORMAL METHODS-
The
informal method of amending the Constitution of India refers to the process of
bringing about changes or modifications to the Constitution without following
the formal procedures laid down in the Constitution itself, such as those
outlined in Article 368. Unlike the formal method, which involves a specific
process of amendment requiring the consent of the Parliament and, in certain
cases, the ratification by a specified number of state legislatures, the
informal method involves changes that occur through judicial interpretation,
conventions, practices, and societal developments.
a) JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION –
In this
case, the constitutional text does not change , but its interpretation
undergoes a change[16]
[17]
In India, judicial interpretation
plays a crucial role in understanding and applying the provisions of the
Constitution, particularly in cases where informal methods of amendment are
involved. The informal methods of amendment refer to those changes in the
Constitution that occur through judicial interpretation, custom, conventions,
and practices rather than through the formal amendment process outlined in
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.
The judiciary,
particularly the Supreme Court, plays a significant role in interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution. Through its judgments and interpretations, the
Court may effectively alter the understanding or application of constitutional
provisions, thereby bringing about changes in the constitutional framework.
One key aspect of judicial
interpretation in the Indian context is the doctrine of judicial review[18],
which allows the judiciary to review the actions of the legislative and
executive branches to ensure they are consistent with the constitution.
A landmark case illustrating this is Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala [19]where
the Supreme Court of India established the doctrine of the "basic
structure" of the constitution. This doctrine holds that while the
constitution can be amended, certain core principles and features, termed the
"basic structure," are beyond the amending power of the legislature.
This decision effectively limits the power of the legislature to amend the
constitution in a manner that would violate its basic structure.
Additionally, judicial decisions have
often filled gaps in legislation or clarified ambiguous constitutional
provisions through their interpretations. This process has helped in adapting
the Constitution to changing societal norms and requirements without the need
for formal amendments.[20]
b)
CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTIONS –
This is another process
of slow metamorphosis, of imperceptible change, the operation of constitutional
provisions may be modified by the growth of conventions, practices and
observances.[21]
Constitutional
conventions play a vital role in the informal method of amending the Indian
Constitution. These conventions are unwritten rules and practices that have
evolved over time and are followed by constitutional authorities, even though
they are not legally enforceable. They often serve to supplement the formal
provisions of the Constitution and contribute to its effective functioning.
Here's a brief exploration of constitutional conventions in the context of
informal constitutional change in India:
1.
Prime Ministerial Accountability to Parliament: One significant constitutional
convention in India is the principle of prime ministerial accountability to
Parliament. While the Constitution provides for a parliamentary system of
government, the exact nature of the relationship between the Prime Minister and
Parliament is largely governed by convention rather than explicit
constitutional provisions. Prime Ministers are expected to be accountable to
Parliament for their actions, policies, and decisions, and they regularly
participate in parliamentary debates and answer questions from Members of
Parliament (MPs).
S. R. Bommai v. Union
of India[22]: In this case, the Supreme Court of
India reaffirmed the principle of parliamentary democracy and emphasized the
importance of parliamentary accountability, highlighting the role of
conventions in ensuring effective governance.
2.
Council of Ministers' Collective Responsibility: Another constitutional convention
is the principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to
the Parliament. While Article 75 of the Indian Constitution outlines the
collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha (House
of the People), the exact workings of this principle are largely determined by
convention. Ministers are expected to act collectively, and decisions of
individual ministers are considered decisions of the entire council.
IN , Keshavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala[23]: Although primarily known for
establishing the basic structure doctrine, this case also underscored the
principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers as a
fundamental feature of the Indian parliamentary system.
3.
Governor's Role in State Administration: A convention exists regarding the
role of Governors in state administration. While the Constitution outlines the
appointment and powers of Governors in states, their actual functions and
interactions with the state government are governed largely by convention.
Governors are expected to act as constitutional heads of the state, exercising
their powers impartially and in accordance with constitutional norms.
IN, Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker,
Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [24]In
this case, the Supreme Court clarified the role and powers of Governors in
state administration, reaffirming the importance of constitutional conventions
in defining their functions.
·
CONVENTIONS
OPERATE IN FOLLOWING WAYS [25]–
One, a convention may
nullify a constitutional provision in practice without formally abolishing it. A
well known example of this is to be found in the fact that in some countries,
the legal power of the Head of the State to veto a bill passed by the
Legislature is never exercised by him except on the advice of the Ministry.
Two, a convention may
work by transferring powers granted to one authority in the constitution to
another authority. This is what usually happens in a country with a
parliamentary form of government where legal powers formally vested in the Head
of the State are effectively exercised by the Ministry.
Three, a convention may affect
a constitution by supplementing a provision therein[26]
These formal and informal
methods interact and complement each other in shaping the process of
constitutional amendment in India. While the formal process provides the legal framework
for amending the Constitution, informal mechanisms such as judicial
interpretation, political consensus, and public opinion contribute to its
evolution and adaptation to changing socio-political realities.
C) MODES OF
AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION –
The constitution provides three modes of amending its
provisions, namely-
1)
AMENDMENT
BY SIMPLE MAJORITY –
Several provisions of the
Constitution can be amended by parliament by simple majority as that required
for passing of any ordinary law. The amendments contemplated in Articles 5,
169, 239(a), 164(5), 186, 195 etc. can be amended by parliament by simple
majority. A bill for this purpose may be initiated in either House of
parliament at the instance of the Union government or at the behest of the
State. The amendment of these provisions is expressly excluded from the purview
of the procedure prescribed in Article 368 of the Constitution.
2)
AMENDMENT
BY SPECIAL MAJORITY –
Articles of the
Constitution which can be amended by parliament by special majority has been
laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution. All constitutional amendments
other Inan referred to above come within this category and must be effected by
a majority of the total membership of each House of parliament as well as by a
majonty not less than 2/3 of the members of that House present and voting It is
to be noted that it is obligatory for the President to give his assent to an
Amendment Bill having being passed by the House of parliament After receiving the
assent of the President, the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the
terms of the Bill .
3)
AMENDMENT
BY SPECIAL MAJORITY AND RATIFICATION BY THE STATE –
Proviso to clause (2) of
Article 368 provides that, if the amending bill mentioned above seeks to make
any change in the following provisions, then such a bill having been passed by
special majority in each House of parliament, shall not be presented to the
President for his ascent to it. until the bill has been ratified by the
legislatures of not less than one half of the States by passing resolutions to
that effect. These provisions are –
A) Articles 54 and 55 [27]
B) Articles 73 and 162 [28]
C) Articles 124 to 147 [29]
D) Articles 214 to 231[30]
E) Article 241 [31]
F) Articles 245 to 255 [32]
G) Any of the three Lists
as mentioned in the seventh Schedule
H) Provisions contained
in fourth Schedule providing for allocation of seats in the Council of State
among the States.
I) Article 368 itself
which deals with procedure for the amendment of the Constitution.
VI.
CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT PROCESS IN UK –
It is often
noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is
true that most countries have a document with special legal status that
contains some of the key features of their constitution. The UK, however, does
not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it
does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of
places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand.
It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular
understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional
conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the
system works.[33]
The United Kingdom's
constitution is unique, primarily unwritten, and evolves through various
mechanisms, including statute law, conventions, and judicial decisions. Unlike
some other countries with codified constitutions, the UK's constitution can be
amended through a flexible and evolutionary process. This pointwise analysis
examines the constitutional amendment process in the UK, highlighting its key
features and mechanisms.
A) PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY –
1)
Fundamental Principle:
Parliamentary sovereignty is a cornerstone of the UK constitution, signifying
that Parliament holds the supreme legal authority.
2)
Amendment Authority: Since
Parliament is sovereign, it possesses the authority to amend the constitution
through the enactment of ordinary legislation.[34]
B) STATUTE LAW –
1)
Primary Mechanism: Amendments
to the UK constitution primarily occur through the enactment of statutes by
Parliament.
2)
Flexibility: Parliament can
amend or repeal any existing law, including constitutional statutes, through
the same legislative process.
3)
Example: The Human Rights Act
1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, altering
the constitutional landscape[35]
C) CONVENTIONS –
1)
Informal Rules: Conventions
are non-legal rules that govern constitutional behaviour and practice.
2)
Evolutionary Role: Conventions
can evolve over time, influencing the interpretation and application of
constitutional principles.
3)
Illustration: The convention
of ministerial responsibility has adapted to changes in executive
accountability and transparency.[36]
D)
REFERENDUMS –
1)
Direct Democracy Tool:
Referendums allow for direct public participation in constitutional
decision-making.
2)
Non-binding Nature:
Referendums in the UK are typically advisory rather than legally binding, but
their outcomes can carry significant political weight.
3)
Case Study: The 2016 EU
Referendum resulted in a decision to leave the European Union, triggering
constitutional and legal changes.[37]
E) DEVOLUTION –
1)
Regional Variation: Devolution
has granted varying degrees of legislative powers to Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland.
2)
Constitutional Impact: Changes
to devolution arrangements require legislative consent from the devolved
parliaments or assemblies, adding complexity to the amendment process.
3)
Reference: The Sewel
Convention outlines the principle of legislative consent in devolved matters.[38]
F) JUDICIAL REVIEW –
1)
Constitutional Oversight:
Courts play a crucial role in interpreting and upholding constitutional
principles.
2)
Limits on Amendment: Courts
can declare legislation incompatible with constitutional norms, providing a
check on parliamentary power.
3)
Precedent: The case of Miller
v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union affirmed the role of the
judiciary in scrutinizing constitutional changes.[39]
The constitutional
amendment process in the United Kingdom is characterized by its flexibility,
reflecting the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and evolutionary
development. Through mechanisms such as statute law, conventions, referendums,
devolution, and judicial review, the UK constitution adapts to societal changes
while maintaining its foundational principles. Understanding these processes is
essential for comprehending the dynamic nature of the UK's constitutional
framework.
VII. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS IN USA –
The US Constitution
is one of the shortest Constitutions and the first Written Constitution around
the globe. The US Constitution is rigid in its format and consists of only 7
articles and 27 amendments.
A) PROPOSAL STAGE –
1)
Congressional Proposal: Amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House
of Representatives and the Senate. This method is the most common way
amendments are proposed and has been used for all 27 amendments to date.
The following steps must be completed
for an amendment proposed by Congress to be added to the United States
Constitution[40].
Step 1. Passage by
Congress. Proposed
amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Step 2. Notification of
the states. The
national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each
state.
Step 3. Ratification by
three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by
Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature
cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A
governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state
actions. Proposed
amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take
effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is
kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures
must return specific materials to show proof of ratification.
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of
states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States
proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification
is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United
States Statutes-at-Large.
State legislatures often call upon
Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some
political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to
respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress
to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states
2)
Convention of States: Alternatively, if two-thirds of state legislatures call for it, a
convention can be convened to propose amendments. However, this method has
never been used to propose an amendment.
B) RATIFICATION STAGE –
1)
Congressional Ratification: Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths (38
out of 50) of the state legislatures. Congress determines the method of
ratification, which can either be through state legislatures or state
conventions.
2)
State Ratification Conventions: Congress can choose to bypass state legislatures and instead require
special conventions in each state to ratify amendments. This method was used
only once for the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.
C) TIME LIMITATIONS-
1)
No Constitutional Time Limit: The Constitution does not explicitly provide a time limit for
ratification. However, Congress has set specific time limits for ratification
for some amendments, which vary in length.
2)
Validity of Time Limits: The validity of time limits imposed by Congress has been debated. In some
cases, amendments have been ratified after the expiration of Congressionally
imposed time limits, leading to uncertainty over their legality.
D) JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION-
1)
Role of the Courts: The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution and its
amendment process. While the Court generally defers to Congress on procedural
matters, it has the final say on constitutional interpretation.
2)
Judicial Review: The Court's power of judicial review allows it to strike down amendments
or parts of amendments that violate the Constitution's original principles, as
demonstrated in cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803).
the amendment process outlined in
Article V of the United States Constitution provides a deliberate and rigorous
mechanism for modifying the nation's fundamental law. By requiring broad
consensus among both the federal government and the states, the process ensures
that any amendments reflect the will of the people and are unlikely to be
hastily enacted or overturned. This stability has been instrumental in
preserving the integrity and endurance of the Constitution over more than two
centuries of American history.
VIII. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT PROCESS OF INDIA, UK
AND USA CONSTITUION .
The amendment processes of the
constitutions of India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of
America (USA) exhibit notable differences reflecting their respective
historical, political, and legal contexts.
India's constitution, adopted in
1950, follows a rigid amendment procedure. Amendments require a two-thirds
majority in both houses of Parliament, followed by ratification by at least
half of the state legislatures. This stringent process aims to maintain the
constitution's stability while accommodating necessary changes over time.
Conversely, the UK lacks a codified
constitution, relying instead on parliamentary sovereignty. Amendments can be
made through ordinary legislation, requiring a simple majority in Parliament.
The flexibility of this process allows for swift adaptation to changing
circumstances, yet it also raises concerns about potential abuse of power.
The USA's constitution, established
in 1789, employs a hybrid system combining rigidity and flexibility. Amendments
necessitate a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or a
constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed
by ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures or special conventions.
This balance between federal and state involvement ensures that amendments
reflect national consensus while safeguarding state interests.
In summary, India's rigid process
emphasizes stability, the UK's flexible approach prioritizes parliamentary
authority, and the USA's hybrid method seeks to balance federal and state
interests in constitutional amendments.
IX.
CONCLUSION-
In conclusion, the comparative analysis
of the amendment processes of the Indian, UK, and US constitutions underscores
the intricate balance between stability and adaptability in governance. India's
flexible yet rigorous process allows for timely adjustments, reflecting its
diverse and evolving society. The UK's unwritten constitution permits fluid
amendments through parliamentary supremacy, facilitating responsiveness to
changing needs. Conversely, the US's arduous process, rooted in checks and
balances, prioritizes stability over rapid change, guarding against hasty
decisions. Each system reflects its respective historical, cultural, and
political contexts, showcasing diverse approaches to constitutional evolution
while striving to uphold democratic principles and ensure effective governance
[2] See generally Loewenstein (1972, 174); Sartori (1962,
853); Murphy (1993A, 8-9); Law and Versteeg (2013, 863).
Last
seen on 28th feb 2024
[3] K.C. Wheare: Modern
Constitutions, London, 1951, p. 91; Also see Haward Lee Mc. B. in: The
Living Constitution, New York, 1948, pp. 7-10.
[4] J. Quick and B.R. Garran: The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney,
1991, p. 316.
[5] Encyclopaedia
of Social Sciences, New York, 1951, Vol. II, p. 21.
[8] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[9] parliamentofindia.nic.in last seen
2nd march2024
[10] Total membership in this context has
been defined to mean the total number of members comprising the House
irrespective of any vacancies or absentees on any account vide Explanation to Rule 159 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Lok Sabha.
[11] The term "special majority" typically refers to a
majority of the total membership of each house as well as a two-thirds majority
of the members present and voting. This ensures that any proposed amendment
garners substantial support from the elected representatives in Parliament.
[12] RATIFICATION BY STATES – PROVISO
TO CLAUSE (2) OF ART 368.
[13] According to the j.n.pandey chap
39 last seen on 2nd march 2024
[14] ART 368 of constitution of india
[15] Introduction to the Constitution of India BY Durga Das Basu
last seen 3rd march 2024
[16] Constitutional interpretation , Ch
XL., supra; WHEARE, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS,146-77(1964)
[17] BY M.P, JAIN chapter XLI –
amendment of the constitution last seen 3rd march 2024
[18] Judicial review is the power of
the courts to examine laws and executive acts and test their conformity with
the constitution and stroke them down if they are found to be inconsistent with
it.
[19] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[21] M.P.JAIN 7th ed., 2015
[23] AIR
1973 SC 1461
[24] AIR (2016)
8 SCC 1:
[25] M.P. Jain, 7th edition – chapter XLI- last seen 5th
march 2024
[26] WHERE, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS,
178-201(1964); COLIN R. MUNRO, laws & conventions distinguished, 91 LQR
218;K.J.KEITH courts and conventions of the const., 16 int& comp LQ 542 (
1967); O. HOOD PHILLIPS, CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, 77-91 (1973); G. MARSHALL, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (1984).
[27] relating to the election of the
President
[28] dealing with the extend of the
executive power of the Union and the States, respectively
[29] contained Chapter-IV of Part-V,
dealing with Constitution, power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
[30] contained Chapter V of Part VI
which provides for the Constitution, powers and jurisdiction of the High Courts
in the State
[31] dealing with the High Courts in
the union territories
[32] contained Chapter-I of Part-XI,
regulating legislative relations between Union and States
[33] https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/
last seen 16th march2024
[34] "Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of
the UK constitution" (Bradley & Ewing, 2018).
[37] Lynch, P. (2018). The Brexit referendum: An anatomy of a
political earthquake. Cambridge University Press.
[38] Mitchell, J., Bennister, M., & Johns, R. (2020). The UK's
changing democracy: The 2018 democratic audit. Springer.
[40] https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-us-constitution
Article Information
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESSES IN INDIA, UK AND USA BY: - ADV. MAITHILI KALE.
Authors: ADV. MAITHILI KALE.
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/27
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.