Prime Minister of India in Kannada for UPSC | ಭಾರತದ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಮಂತ್ರಿ

 

Criticism of India's Amendment Procedure

1. No Special Body: Unlike the USA, India doesn’t have a special body like a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. The power lies with Parliament and, in some cases, state legislatures.

2. Parliament’s Dominance: Only Parliament can propose amendments. States cannot initiate changes, except for creating or abolishing legislative councils, and even then, Parliament has the final say.

3. Limited State Role: Most amendments can be made by Parliament alone. States’ consent is needed only in a few cases, and even then, just half the states need to agree (unlike the USA, where three-fourths are required).

4. No Time Limit for States: There’s no fixed deadline for states to approve or reject an amendment. The Constitution is also unclear on whether states can withdraw their approval once given.

5. No Joint Sitting: If there’s a deadlock in Parliament over an amendment, there’s no provision for a joint sitting to resolve it (unlike ordinary bills).

6. Similar to Ordinary Bills: Except for needing a special majority, constitutional amendment bills are processed like regular bills in Parliament.

7. Judiciary Involvement: The amendment procedure lacks detail, often leading to judicial interpretation.

Balanced Perspective

Despite criticisms, the process strikes a balance between being too rigid and too flexible.

• It adapts to changing needs without allowing ruling parties to misuse it.
• Jawaharlal Nehru: A Constitution should allow flexibility for national growth.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: The Indian process is easier than in Canada, America, or Australia.
• K.C. Wheare: The varied amendment methods are a rare and wise feature.
• Granville Austin: Though diverse, the process is well-designed and effective.

Go to Link