Constitutional Amendments for State’s Ratification

Why in news?

The Law Ministry has recommended the Ram Nath Govind panel to examine if the constitutional amendments required to facilitate simultaneous elections would require ratification by the States.

How the Constitution is amended?

Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.

• Article 368- It states that the Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.
• Limitation- In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannotamend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• Procedures of Constitutional Amendments-

• Simple majority- It does not require specific quorum.
• It is applicable to
  • Article 4- It is related to changes  in the organisation of states,
  • Article 169- It deals with abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States,
  • Schedule VI- Provisions for the administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
• Special majority - The requirement is applicable only to the final voting stage.
• Lok Sabha rules prescribes adherence to special majority at all effective stages of the Bill.
• It is applicable to
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Directive Principles of State Policy
  • All other provisions which are not covered by the 1^st and 3^rd categories.
• Special majority + States ratification- The moment half of the states give their consent, the formality is completed.
• There is no time limit within which the States should give their consent to the bill.
• Revoking the ratification – There is no specific mention in the Constitution about the States revoking their ratification.

• States Ratification was applied for
  • 99^th Amendment Act- Established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for the appointment of Supreme Court judges
  • 101^st Amendment Act 2016- Introduced GST regime
  • Federal structure- Specifically listed in Article 368(2) and are commonly referred to as ‘entrenched provisions’

The Constituent Assembly debates show that Dr. B.R Ambedkar was in favour of ratification by States for amending certain constitutional provisions to ensure that the federal structure of the Constitution remains unaltered.

Can a constitutional amendment be struck down for want of ratification?

• Anti-Defection case- In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu (1992), the constitutional validity of the 10^th Schedule of the Constitution inserted by the 52^nd Amendment Act, 1985 was challenged on the ground that the amendment was not ratified by the States.
• The Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule invalid for want of ratification.
• 97^th amendment act, 2011- In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, the Court held that the amendment required ratification by at least one-half of the State legislatures as per Article 368(2), since it dealt with an exclusive State subject under 7^th Schedule.

52^nd Amendment Act, 1985 - Introduced anti-defection law in India which became the part of 10th Schedule of the Constitution.

97^th Amendment Act, 2011 - Gave constitutional status to Cooperative Societies.

Reference

1. The Hindu- States ratification in Constitutional Amendments