5.4. Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

1. There is no special body for amending the Constitution. As compared to the US, which has a special body (Amendments Convention), there is no such provision in the case of India. Hence, the Constitution has often been amended to attain political goals and ends.

2. State legislatures cannot initiate a constitutional amendment bill (unlike the US). This is held as a criticism against federal base of India. Even in the one exception to the above point (state legislatures can introduce a resolution for demand of State Legislative Councils), is subject to whims of the Parliament, which can reject such a resolution or may not take any action at all. Major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either by a special majority or by a simple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of the state legislatures is required.

3. There is no time frame for state legislature’s ratification or rejection.

4. There is no provision for joint sitting of houses in case of a deadlock between them on the matter of an amendment bill, which is available in the case of an ordinary bill. This seems ironical considering the importance that the amendment process has been accorded in our Constitution.

5. The procedure for amendment is kept too sketchy, leaving a wide scope for judicial intervention, which as we have seen above, has led to various confrontations between the Parliament and the judiciary, which undermines the balance of the Indian polity.