Which of the following are matters on which a constitutional amendment is possible only with the ratification of the legislature of not less than one-half of the states ?
1. Election of the President.

Question

Which of the following are matters on which a constitutional amendment is possible only with the ratification of the legislature of not less than one-half of the states ?
1. Election of the President.
2. Representation of States in Parliament.
3. Any of the lists in the 7th Schedule.
4. Abolition of the Legislative Council of a State.
Choose the correct answer.

UnlockIAS · Accepted Answer

Correct — B, 1, 2 and 3. Article 368 provides three routes for amending the Constitution: by a simple majority of those present and voting, for matters the Constitution itself takes out of Article 368 such as the creation of new States; by a special majority of each House — a majority of the total membership plus two-thirds of those present and voting; and, for a short entrenched list, by that special majority PLUS ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. The proviso to Article 368(2) sets out the entrenched list, and three of the four statements here are on it. Statement 1, the election of the President, is listed because Articles 54 and 55 govern that election and both are named in the proviso — the electoral college includes the elected members of every State Assembly, so the States have a direct stake. Statement 2, the representation of States in Parliament, is listed because it turns on the Fourth Schedule, which allots Rajya Sabha seats to the States. Statement 3, any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, is listed because those Lists are the division of legislative power itself, and neither level of government can be allowed to rewrite the other's competence alone. The remaining entrenched matters, not offered here, are the extent of the executive power of the Union and of the States, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States, the representation of States in Parliament, and Article 368 itself. Statement 4 is the trap and the whole question. Creating or abolishing a State Legislative Council is governed by Article 169, not Article 368: Parliament may do it by ORDINARY law once the State's own Legislative Assembly passes a resolution by a special majority, and Article 169(3) says in terms that such a law shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. No ratification by other States is involved — indeed no other State is consulted at all. Statement 4 therefore falls, and with it options (a), (c) and (d), each of which contains it.

Why the other options are wrong — (a) Correct about the President's election and the Seventh Schedule, but it admits statement 4 and drops statement 2. Representation of the States in Parliament is squarely inside the proviso to Article 368(2), because it works through the Fourth Schedule, which fixes how many Rajya Sabha seats each State gets.  (c) Gets the two federal-representation items right and then swaps the Seventh Schedule for the abolition of a Legislative Council — which is the exact opposite of the constitutional position. The Seventh Schedule is the most obviously entrenched item on the list, since it defines what the States may legislate on at all.  (d) Drops the election of the President, which is explicitly protected by the proviso through Articles 54 and 55, and again admits the Legislative Council item. Any option containing statement 4 can be struck out immediately once Article 169(3) is remembered.

Concept: The Indian amendment procedure is deliberately neither as rigid as the American nor as flexible as the British. Article 368 lets a Bill be introduced in either House — no prior recommendation of the President is needed, and it may be a private member's Bill — and requires it to be passed by each House separately by a special majority; there is no provision for a joint sitting if the Houses disagree. For the entrenched matters listed in the proviso, ratification by the legislatures of at least half the States must follow, and only then does the Bill go to the President, who under the Twenty-fourth Amendment is bound to assent. The federal logic of the proviso is easy to state: any change that alters the relationship between the Union and the States, or the States' share in central institutions, requires the States' own consent. Over and above all of this sits the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973), under which even a properly ratified amendment can be struck down if it damages the Constitution's basic structure.

State PCS 2025 Q19 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer

State PCS 2025 Q19 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer