Supreme Court Case Law on Validity of Constitutional Amendments
The power to amend the Constitution of India is conferred by Article 368. Parliament has wide constituent power, but that power is not unlimited: an amendment cannot damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court developed this limitation through a line of constitutional decisions beginning with early challenges to Parliament's amending power and culminating in the basic structure doctrine.
Article 368: power and procedure to amend the Constitution
Article 368 of the Constitution of India deals with Parliament's constituent power and the procedure for constitutional amendment. An amendment Bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament. It must be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. Amendments affecting specified federal provisions additionally require ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States before the Bill is presented to the President for assent.
The official text of the Constitution, including Article 368, is available from the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. The Legislative Department also publishes the Constitution Amendment Acts.
What is the basic structure doctrine?
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a thirteen-Judge Bench held that Parliament's power under Article 368 extends to amendment of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but does not permit destruction of its basic structure or identity. The doctrine does not rest on a closed statutory list. Later judgments have identified features such as constitutional supremacy, republican and democratic government, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the basic-structure analysis.
The Supreme Court hosts an official page for His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 Supp SCR 1.
Leading Supreme Court cases on constitutional amendments
| Case | Amendment or issue | Legal significance |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 | Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 | The Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights and treated a constitutional amendment under Article 368 as distinct from ordinary law for the purpose of Article 13. |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 | Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 | The Court again upheld Parliament's amending power, while separate opinions raised questions that later became central to the basic structure debate. |
| I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 | First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments; Fundamental Rights | The majority held prospectively that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. This position on the scope of the amending power was later modified by Kesavananda Bharati. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; 1973 Supp SCR 1 | Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments | The Court formulated the basic structure doctrine: Parliament may amend every part of the Constitution, but cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1 | Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 | The Court invalidated the constitutional protection created for specified high-office elections insofar as it violated basic constitutional features, reinforcing the basic structure limitation. |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 | Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 | Sections 4 and 55 were examined. The Court invalidated provisions that sought to give unlimited amending power and exclude judicial review, and stressed harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. |
| Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 | Ninth Schedule and Article 31B | The Court applied the basic structure doctrine prospectively to constitutional amendments placing laws in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. |
| P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 1 SCC 362; AIR 1987 SC 663 | Article 371D as introduced by the Thirty-second Amendment | The Court struck down the proviso to Article 371D(5), which enabled the State Government to modify or annul an Administrative Tribunal's final order, as destructive of the rule of law and judicial review. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 | Articles 323A and 323B; Forty-second Amendment framework | The Court held that judicial review by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 | Ninth Schedule; post-Kesavananda amendments | A nine-Judge Bench held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 remain open to basic-structure review where the protected law damages constitutional rights forming part of the basic structure. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1 | Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and NJAC | The Court struck down the Ninety-ninth Amendment and the NJAC Act, holding that the changes impaired the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the basic structure. |
| Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, (2021) 9 SCC 1 | Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 | The Court held that the amendment, insofar as it dealt with State co-operative societies, required State ratification under the proviso to Article 368(2); the relevant Part IXB provisions were invalid to that extent. |
| Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540 | Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 | By majority, the Court upheld the amendment providing for economically weaker sections reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) against the basic-structure challenge. |
Current legal principles on validity of constitutional amendments
A constitutional amendment must first comply with the procedural requirements of Article 368. Where the proviso to Article 368(2) applies, ratification by at least one-half of the State Legislatures is a constitutional requirement. A procedurally valid amendment is still subject to substantive review under the basic structure doctrine. Parliament cannot, by exercising the amending power, convert a limited amending power into an unlimited one or remove constitutional features whose destruction would alter the identity of the Constitution.
Judicial review of constitutional amendments therefore differs from ordinary statutory review. The question is not merely whether the amendment conflicts with an existing constitutional provision, because an amendment changes the constitutional text. The controlling question under the basic structure doctrine is whether the amendment damages or destroys a basic feature of the Constitution.
For recent official discussion of the doctrine, the Supreme Court's 2022 Constitution Bench judgment concerning the One Hundred and Third Amendment traces the development of the basic structure cases. The Supreme Court also provides its official Constitution and judiciary information.
Official constitutional resources
For authoritative text, readers should verify the current Constitution and amendment enactments on the websites of the Legislative Department and the Supreme Court of India. Case citations and summaries on this page are intended as a legal research guide and should be read with the full judgments.
Updated: 19 September 2026.