The Indian government recently established a committee to explore the feasibility of implementing the “one nation, one election” concept. The committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, is tasked with examining various legal and logistical aspects. Among the crucial considerations is whether a constitutional amendment would require ratification by the states.
The Constitution’s Amendment Process
- Article 368 and Its Interpretation: The Constitution of India provides for its own amendment under Article 368. The interpretation of this provision has been a contentious issue, leading to conflicts between the Parliament and the judiciary since 1951.
- Combination of Flexibility and Rigidity: During the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, the question of whether the Constitution should be flexible or rigid was widely discussed. India adopted a combination of both flexibility and rigidity, allowing amendments through judicial interpretation and conventions.
Categories of Amendments
- Simple Majority: Certain provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple legislative process, similar to passing regular legislation in Parliament. This only requires a majority of those present and voting, without the need for a quorum. Examples include changing state names, admitting new states, and altering state boundaries.
- Special Majority: For amendments outside the first category, Article 368 mandates a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Rule 158 of the Lok Sabha Rules clarifies that the total membership counts, regardless of vacancies or absentees.
- Ratification by States: A third category of provisions necessitates not only a special majority but also ratification by legislatures in at least half of the states. Such provisions are considered “entrenched” and involve aspects that define the federal character of the Constitution.
Entrenched Provisions
Article 368 specifies six parts of the Constitution with additional safeguards for amending them. These include provisions related to the election of the President, executive powers, powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts, legislative distribution, representation of states in Parliament, and Article 368 itself.
Supreme Court Perspective
In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu (1992), the issue of ratification gained significance. The challenge was made against the Tenth Schedule amendment, which aimed to disqualify elected representatives. This amendment encroached upon the jurisdiction of courts, affecting one of the six aspects requiring state ratification—the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts. While the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, it struck down the part that restricted court jurisdiction.
UPSC Mains Questions
- What are the key challenges associated with implementing the “one nation, one election” concept, as highlighted by the committee’s terms of reference?
- How does India’s Constitution strike a balance between flexibility and rigidity in the amendment process, and why was this approach chosen?
- In light of the Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu case, what implications does the requirement for state ratification have on the amendment process, particularly regarding matters affecting the judiciary’s jurisdiction?
