jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
CRITICISM OF FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES	The Fundamental Duties mentioned in Part IVA of the Constitution	have been criticised on the following grounds:
1. The list of duties is not exhaustive as it does not cover other	important duties like casting vote, paying taxes, family	planning and so on. In fact, duty to pay taxes was
recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee.	2. Some of the duties are vague, ambiguous and difficult to be	understood by the common man. For example, different
interpretations can be given to the phrases like ‘noble	ideals’, ‘composite culture’, ‘scientific temper’ and so on2 .	3. They have been described by the critics as a code of moral
precepts due to their non-justiciable character. Interestingly,	the Swaran Singh Committee had suggested for penalty or	punishment for the non-performance of Fundamental Duties.
4. Their inclusion in the Constitution was described by the	critics as superfluous. This is because the duties included in	the Constitution as fundamental would be performed by the
people even though they were not incorporated in the	Constitution3 .	5. The critics said that the inclusion of fundamental duties as
an appendage to Part IV of the Constitution has reduced	their value and significance. They should have been added	after Part III so as to keep them on par with Fundamental
SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES	In spite of criticisms and opposition, the fundamental duties are	considered significant from the following viewpoints:
1. They serve as a reminder to the citizens that while enjoying	their rights, they should also be conscious of duties they owe	to their country, their society and to their fellow citizens.
2. They serve as a warning against the antinational and	antisocial activities like burning the national flag, destroying	public property and so on.
3. They serve as a source of inspiration for the citizens and	promote a sense of discipline and commitment among them.	They create a feeling that the citizens are not mere
spectators but active participants in the realisation of	national goals.	4. They help the courts in examining and determining the
constitutional validity of a law. In 1992, the Supreme Court	ruled that in determining the constitutionality of any law, if a	court finds that the law in question seeks to give effect to a
fundamental duty, it may consider such law to be	‘reasonable’ in relation to Article 14 (equality before law) or	Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such law from
unconstitutionality.	5. They are enforceable by law. Hence, the Parliament can	provide for the imposition of appropriate penalty or
punishment for failure to fulfil any of them.	H.R. Gokhale, the then Law Minister, gave the following reason	for incorporating the fundamental duties in the Constitution after
twenty-six years of its inauguration: ‘In post-independent India,	particularly on the eve of emergency in June 1975, a section of	the people showed no anxiety to fulfil their fundamental
obligations of respecting the established legal order ..... the	provisions of chapter on fundamental duties would have a	sobering effect on these restless spirits who have had a host of
Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, justified the inclusion of	fundamental duties in the Constitution and argued that their	inclusion would help to strengthen democracy. She said, ‘the
moral value of fundamental duties would be not to smoother rights	but to establish a democratic balance by making the people	conscious of their duties equally as they are conscious of their
rights’.	The Opposition in the Parliament strongly opposed the	inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution by the
Congress government. However, the new Janata Government	headed by Morarji Desai in the post-emergency period did not	annul the Fundamental Duties. Notably, the new government
sought to undo many changes introduced in the Constitution by	the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) through the 43rd Amendment	Act (1977) and the 44th Amendment Act (1978). This shows that
there was an eventual consensus on the necessity and desirability	of including the Fundamental Duties in the Constitution. This is	more clear with the addition of one more Fundamental Duty in
VERMA COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS	The Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens	(1999) identified the existence of legal provisions for the
implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties. They are	mentioned below:	1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (1971)
prevents disrespect to the Constitution of India, the National	Flag and the National Anthem.	2. The various criminal laws in force provide for punishments
for encouraging enmity between different sections of people	on grounds of language, race, place of birth, religion and so	on.
3. The Protection of Civil Rights Act4 (1955) provides for	punishments for offences related to caste and religion.	4. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) declares the imputations and
assertions prejudicial to national integration as punishable	offences.	5. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 provides for
the declaration of a communal organisation as an unlawful	association.	6. The Representation of People Act (1951) provides for the
disqualification of members of the Parliament or a state	legislature for indulging in corrupt practice, that is, soliciting	votes on the ground of religion or promoting enmity between
different sections of people on grounds of caste, race,	language, religion and so on.	7. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 prohibits trade in rare
and endangered species.	8. The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 checks indiscriminate	deforestation and diversion of forest land for nonforest
purposes.	NOTES AND REFERENCES	1. The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 20,
all persons whether citizens or foreigners.	2. D.D. Chawla, the then president of the National Forum	of Lawyers and Legal Aid, Delhi, observed: ‘The duties
may be spelt out in a more concrete form, one is left	guessing the noble ideals. To some even the Bhagat	Singh cult may be such an ideal as inspired our national
struggle. Again what is the rich heritage of our	composite culture and what is scientific temper,	humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform? The
values are beyond the ken of the general run of the	people and carry no meaning to them. Duties should be	such and so worded as to catch the imagination of the
common man.’	D.D. Chawla, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Duties’,	Socialist India (New Delhi), October 23, 1976, P. 44–45.
3. C.K. Daphtary, former Attorney General of India, while	opposing the inclusion of fundamental duties in the	Constitution, said that more than 99.9 per cent of the
citizens were law-abiding and there was no need to tell	them about their duties. He argued that as long as the	people are satisfied and contended, they willingly
perform their duties. He said, ‘To tell them what their	duties are implies that they are not content. If that is the	case after 26 years, it is not their fault’. A.K. Sen also
opposed the inclusion of fundamental duties in the	Constitution and remarked, ‘A democratic set-up,	instead of thriving on the willing cooperation and
confidence of people, is reduced to the position of a	harsh school master asking the student to stand up on	the class room bench because he has not done the
home work. To begin with, it were the people of India	who created the Sovereign Democratic Republic of	India in 1950, but the Republic is now claiming to be the
master of the citizens enjoining habitual obedience to its	command to do his duty. The state’s confidence in the	citizens is obviously shaken’.
10 Amendment of the Constitution	L	ike any other written Constitution, the Constitution of India
also provides for its amendment in order to adjust itself to	the changing conditions and needs. However, the	procedure laid down for its amendment is neither as easy as in
Britain nor as difficult as in USA. In other words, the Indian	Constitution is neither flexible nor rigid but a synthesis of both.	Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers
of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure. 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. However, the Parliament cannot amend those	provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT	The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down	in Article 368 is as follows:
1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by	the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of	Parliament and not in the state legislatures.
2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private	member and does not require prior permission of the	president.
3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority,	that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and	a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present
and voting.	4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a	disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision
for holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for the purpose of	deliberation and passage of the bill.	5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the
Constitution, it must also be ratified by the legislatures of half	of the states by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the	members of the House present and voting.
6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and	ratified by the state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is	presented to the president for assent.
7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither	withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for	reconsideration of the Parliament.2
8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a	constitutional amendment act) and the Constitution stands	amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.
TYPES OF AMENDMENTS	Article 368 provides for two types of amendments, that is, by a	special majority of Parliament and also through the ratification of
half of the states by a simple majority. But, some other articles	provide for the amendment of certain provisions of the	Constitution by a simple majority of Parliament, that is, a majority
of the members of each House present and voting (similar to the	ordinary legislative process). Notably, these amendments are not	deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of
Article 368.	Therefore, the Constitution can be amended in three ways:	(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,
(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and	(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the	ratification of half of the state legislatures.
By Simple Majority of Parliament	A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a	simple majority of the two Houses of Parliament outside the scope
of Article 368. These provisions include:	1. Admission or establishment of new states.	2. Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries
or names of existing states.	3. Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.	4. Second Schedule–emoluments, allowances, privileges and
so on of the president, the governors, the Speakers, judges,	etc.	5. Quorum in Parliament.
6. Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.	7. Rules of procedure in Parliament.	8. Privileges of the Parliament, its members and its
committees.	9. Use of English language in Parliament.	10. Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.
13. Citizenship–acquisition and termination.	14. Elections to Parliament and state legislatures.	15. Delimitation of constituencies.
16. Union territories.	17. Fifth Schedule–administration of scheduled areas and	scheduled tribes.
18. Sixth Schedule–administration of tribal areas.	By Special Majority of Parliament	The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be
amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is, a	majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of	two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting. The
expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of	members comprising the House irrespective of fact whether there	are vacancies or absentees.
‘Strictly speaking, the special majority is required only for voting	at the third reading stage of the bill but by way of abundant	caution the requirement for special majority has been provided for
in the rules of the Houses in respect of all the effective stages of	the bill’3 .	The provisions which can be amended by this way includes: (i)
Fundamental Rights; (ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and	(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third	categories.
By Special Majority of Parliament and Consent of	States	Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the
federal structure of the polity can be amended by a special	majority of the Parliament and also with the consent of half of the	state legislatures by a simple majority. If one or some or all the
remaining states take no action on the bill, it does not matter; the	moment half of the states give their consent, the formality is	completed. There is no time limit within which the states should
1. Election of the President and its manner.	2. Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.	3. Supreme Court and high courts.
4. Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the	states.	5. Goods and Services Tax Council3a.
6. Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.	7. Representation of states in Parliament.	8. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its
CRITICISM OF THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE	Critics have criticised the amendment procedure of the	Constitution on the following grounds:
1. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional	Convention (as in USA) or Constitutional Assembly for	amending the Constitution. The constituent power is vested
in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state	legislatures.	2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies
with the Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4 , the state	legislatures cannot initiate any bill or proposal for amending	the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a
resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or	abolition of legislative councils in the states. Here also, the	Parliament can either approve or disapprove such a
resolution or may not take any action on it.	3. 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 and that too, only half of them, while	in USA, it is three-fourths of the states.
4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within	which the state legislatures should ratify or reject an	amendment submitted to them. Also, it is silent on the issue
whether the states can withdraw their approval after	according the same.	5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the
Houses of Parliament if there is a deadlock over the	passage of a constitutional amendment bill. On the other	hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an
ordinary bill.	6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative	process. Except for the special majority, the constitutional
7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too	sketchy. Hence, they leave a wide scope for taking the	matters to the judiciary.

CRITICISM OF FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES

The Fundamental Duties mentioned in Part IVA of the Constitution

have been criticised on the following grounds:

1. The list of duties is not exhaustive as it does not cover other

important duties like casting vote, paying taxes, family

planning and so on. In fact, duty to pay taxes was

recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee.

2. Some of the duties are vague, ambiguous and difficult to be

understood by the common man. For example, different

interpretations can be given to the phrases like ‘noble

ideals’, ‘composite culture’, ‘scientific temper’ and so on2 .

3. They have been described by the critics as a code of moral

precepts due to their non-justiciable character. Interestingly,

the Swaran Singh Committee had suggested for penalty or

punishment for the non-performance of Fundamental Duties.

4. Their inclusion in the Constitution was described by the

critics as superfluous. This is because the duties included in

the Constitution as fundamental would be performed by the

people even though they were not incorporated in the

Constitution3 .

5. The critics said that the inclusion of fundamental duties as

an appendage to Part IV of the Constitution has reduced

their value and significance. They should have been added

after Part III so as to keep them on par with Fundamental

SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES

In spite of criticisms and opposition, the fundamental duties are

considered significant from the following viewpoints:

1. They serve as a reminder to the citizens that while enjoying

their rights, they should also be conscious of duties they owe

to their country, their society and to their fellow citizens.

2. They serve as a warning against the antinational and

antisocial activities like burning the national flag, destroying

public property and so on.

3. They serve as a source of inspiration for the citizens and

promote a sense of discipline and commitment among them.

They create a feeling that the citizens are not mere

spectators but active participants in the realisation of

national goals.

4. They help the courts in examining and determining the

constitutional validity of a law. In 1992, the Supreme Court

ruled that in determining the constitutionality of any law, if a

court finds that the law in question seeks to give effect to a

fundamental duty, it may consider such law to be

‘reasonable’ in relation to Article 14 (equality before law) or

Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such law from

unconstitutionality.

5. They are enforceable by law. Hence, the Parliament can

provide for the imposition of appropriate penalty or

punishment for failure to fulfil any of them.

H.R. Gokhale, the then Law Minister, gave the following reason

for incorporating the fundamental duties in the Constitution after

twenty-six years of its inauguration: ‘In post-independent India,

particularly on the eve of emergency in June 1975, a section of

the people showed no anxiety to fulfil their fundamental

obligations of respecting the established legal order ..... the

provisions of chapter on fundamental duties would have a

sobering effect on these restless spirits who have had a host of

Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, justified the inclusion of

fundamental duties in the Constitution and argued that their

inclusion would help to strengthen democracy. She said, ‘the

moral value of fundamental duties would be not to smoother rights

but to establish a democratic balance by making the people

conscious of their duties equally as they are conscious of their

rights’.

The Opposition in the Parliament strongly opposed the

inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution by the

Congress government. However, the new Janata Government

headed by Morarji Desai in the post-emergency period did not

annul the Fundamental Duties. Notably, the new government

sought to undo many changes introduced in the Constitution by

the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) through the 43rd Amendment

Act (1977) and the 44th Amendment Act (1978). This shows that

there was an eventual consensus on the necessity and desirability

of including the Fundamental Duties in the Constitution. This is

more clear with the addition of one more Fundamental Duty in

VERMA COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

The Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens

(1999) identified the existence of legal provisions for the

implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties. They are

mentioned below:

1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (1971)

prevents disrespect to the Constitution of India, the National

Flag and the National Anthem.

2. The various criminal laws in force provide for punishments

for encouraging enmity between different sections of people

on grounds of language, race, place of birth, religion and so

on.

3. The Protection of Civil Rights Act4 (1955) provides for

punishments for offences related to caste and religion.

4. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) declares the imputations and

assertions prejudicial to national integration as punishable

offences.

5. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 provides for

the declaration of a communal organisation as an unlawful

association.

6. The Representation of People Act (1951) provides for the

disqualification of members of the Parliament or a state

legislature for indulging in corrupt practice, that is, soliciting

votes on the ground of religion or promoting enmity between

different sections of people on grounds of caste, race,

language, religion and so on.

7. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 prohibits trade in rare

and endangered species.

8. The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 checks indiscriminate

deforestation and diversion of forest land for nonforest

purposes.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 20,

all persons whether citizens or foreigners.

2. D.D. Chawla, the then president of the National Forum

of Lawyers and Legal Aid, Delhi, observed: ‘The duties

may be spelt out in a more concrete form, one is left

guessing the noble ideals. To some even the Bhagat

Singh cult may be such an ideal as inspired our national

struggle. Again what is the rich heritage of our

composite culture and what is scientific temper,

humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform? The

values are beyond the ken of the general run of the

people and carry no meaning to them. Duties should be

such and so worded as to catch the imagination of the

common man.’

D.D. Chawla, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Duties’,

Socialist India (New Delhi), October 23, 1976, P. 44–45.

3. C.K. Daphtary, former Attorney General of India, while

opposing the inclusion of fundamental duties in the

Constitution, said that more than 99.9 per cent of the

citizens were law-abiding and there was no need to tell

them about their duties. He argued that as long as the

people are satisfied and contended, they willingly

perform their duties. He said, ‘To tell them what their

duties are implies that they are not content. If that is the

case after 26 years, it is not their fault’. A.K. Sen also

opposed the inclusion of fundamental duties in the

Constitution and remarked, ‘A democratic set-up,

instead of thriving on the willing cooperation and

confidence of people, is reduced to the position of a

harsh school master asking the student to stand up on

the class room bench because he has not done the

home work. To begin with, it were the people of India

who created the Sovereign Democratic Republic of

India in 1950, but the Republic is now claiming to be the

master of the citizens enjoining habitual obedience to its

command to do his duty. The state’s confidence in the

citizens is obviously shaken’.

10 Amendment of the Constitution

L

ike any other written Constitution, the Constitution of India

also provides for its amendment in order to adjust itself to

the changing conditions and needs. However, the

procedure laid down for its amendment is neither as easy as in

Britain nor as difficult as in USA. In other words, the Indian

Constitution is neither flexible nor rigid but a synthesis of both.

Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers

of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure. 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. However, the Parliament cannot amend those

provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT

The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down

in Article 368 is as follows:

1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by

the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of

Parliament and not in the state legislatures.

2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private

member and does not require prior permission of the

president.

3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority,

that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and

a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present

and voting.

4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a

disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision

for holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for the purpose of

deliberation and passage of the bill.

5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the

Constitution, it must also be ratified by the legislatures of half

of the states by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the

members of the House present and voting.

6. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and

ratified by the state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is

presented to the president for assent.

7. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither

withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for

reconsideration of the Parliament.2

8. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a

constitutional amendment act) and the Constitution stands

amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.

TYPES OF AMENDMENTS

Article 368 provides for two types of amendments, that is, by a

special majority of Parliament and also through the ratification of

half of the states by a simple majority. But, some other articles

provide for the amendment of certain provisions of the

Constitution by a simple majority of Parliament, that is, a majority

of the members of each House present and voting (similar to the

ordinary legislative process). Notably, these amendments are not

deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of

Article 368.

Therefore, the Constitution can be amended in three ways:

(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,

(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and

(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the

ratification of half of the state legislatures.

By Simple Majority of Parliament

A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a

simple majority of the two Houses of Parliament outside the scope

of Article 368. These provisions include:

1. Admission or establishment of new states.

2. Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries

or names of existing states.

3. Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.

4. Second Schedule–emoluments, allowances, privileges and

so on of the president, the governors, the Speakers, judges,

etc.

5. Quorum in Parliament.

6. Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.

7. Rules of procedure in Parliament.

8. Privileges of the Parliament, its members and its

committees.

9. Use of English language in Parliament.

10. Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.

13. Citizenship–acquisition and termination.

14. Elections to Parliament and state legislatures.

15. Delimitation of constituencies.

16. Union territories.

17. Fifth Schedule–administration of scheduled areas and

scheduled tribes.

18. Sixth Schedule–administration of tribal areas.

By Special Majority of Parliament

The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be

amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is, a

majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of

two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting. The

expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of

members comprising the House irrespective of fact whether there

are vacancies or absentees.

‘Strictly speaking, the special majority is required only for voting

at the third reading stage of the bill but by way of abundant

caution the requirement for special majority has been provided for

in the rules of the Houses in respect of all the effective stages of

the bill’3 .

The provisions which can be amended by this way includes: (i)

Fundamental Rights; (ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and

(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third

categories.

By Special Majority of Parliament and Consent of

States

Those provisions of the Constitution which are related to the

federal structure of the polity can be amended by a special

majority of the Parliament and also with the consent of half of the

state legislatures by a simple majority. If one or some or all the

remaining states take no action on the bill, it does not matter; the

moment half of the states give their consent, the formality is

completed. There is no time limit within which the states should

1. Election of the President and its manner.

2. Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.

3. Supreme Court and high courts.

4. Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the

states.

5. Goods and Services Tax Council3a.

6. Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.

7. Representation of states in Parliament.

8. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its

CRITICISM OF THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

Critics have criticised the amendment procedure of the

Constitution on the following grounds:

1. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional

Convention (as in USA) or Constitutional Assembly for

amending the Constitution. The constituent power is vested

in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state

legislatures.

2. The power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies

with the Parliament. Hence, unlike in USA4 , the state

legislatures cannot initiate any bill or proposal for amending

the Constitution except in one case, that is, passing a

resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or

abolition of legislative councils in the states. Here also, the

Parliament can either approve or disapprove such a

resolution or may not take any action on it.

3. 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 and that too, only half of them, while

in USA, it is three-fourths of the states.

4. The Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within

which the state legislatures should ratify or reject an

amendment submitted to them. Also, it is silent on the issue

whether the states can withdraw their approval after

according the same.

5. There is no provision for holding a joint sitting of both the

Houses of Parliament if there is a deadlock over the

passage of a constitutional amendment bill. On the other

hand, a provision for a joint sitting is made in the case of an

ordinary bill.

6. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative

process. Except for the special majority, the constitutional

7. The provisions relating to the amendment procedure are too

sketchy. Hence, they leave a wide scope for taking the

matters to the judiciary.