Talk:Amendment of the Constitution of India

Article 368 (1) supersedes Article 4 (2)
Dear Bigjolly9, Article 368 (1) was added by 24th Amendment. Please refer the page for complete verbatim of the amendment with external reference. The content of article 368 (1) is self explanatory with non obstante clause which will make other contrary articles invalid.

Interpretation of Non Obstante Clause

I hope you are satisfied. 49.207.244.249 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. You are absolutely correct. I thought clause 1 was in the original Constitution, but I see now that it was indeed inserted by the 24th Amendment. Thanks for clearing this up. BigJolly9 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your theory that 368 (1) voids simple majority amendment powers is yours alone and would thus have no place in Wikipedia even if its logic were sound.


 * There is no conflict between 368 (1) and 4 (2), so the non obstante is moot. 4 (2) contains only deeming instructions, and 368 (1) contains no deeming instructions, so conflict is logically impossible. The amendments allowed by Article 4 shall not be deemed amendments for purposes of "article 368", which includes 368 (1), and 368 (1) does not dispute that.


 * Your statement that 368 (1) "is the only procedure for amending the constitution" is clearly wrong, as 368 (1) is not a procedure and does not describe a procedure. 368 (1) merely affirms that Parliament "may" amend "any" provision using the procedure in 368. It is 368 (2), sans non obstante, that says said procedure is the "only" permissible amendment procedure. In fact, the only word in all of 368 (1) that could even remotely be interpreted as indicating exclusivity is "its", whose antecedent and thus referent is "Parliament", not Parliament in any particular capacity or following any particular procedure. Again, that doesn't mean Parliament's constituent power is not limited to the 368 procedure; just that it is limited to said procedure by 368 (2), not 368 (1), and only if the amendments allowed by Article 4 et al. are not deemed amendments for the purposes of defining "constituent power".


 * Kesavananda 506e, is nothing more than an affirmation of the nondelegation doctrine; as the Constitution directly gives Parliament in its ordinary legislative capacity limited rights to amend the Constitution, it has no need of being delegated them by itself in its constituent capacity. The court later in that decision explicitly refutes your theory:


 * "…the Constitution can be amended not only under Article 368 but also under Article 4, Article 169, Paragraph 7 of Schedule V and Paragraph 21 of Schedule VI. Amendments under these provisions can be effected by Parliament by a simple majority vote…" (665)

Page numbers of in line citation.
Hi, whenever you make changes to Wikipedia please support it with an in line citation. I see that you have added one, but it is incomplete. You need to add the page number as well when you cite books or pdfs. Without these details, the ref is considered incomplete and maybe challenged by any editor. Can you please add the relevant page numbers so that the source can be verified? Thanks. BigJolly9 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear BigJolly9, This has reference to your above message to me. The clause numbers are given such that it can be verified from the in line reference. Hope, it is OK. 49.207.253.23 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amendment of the Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075730/http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Krishnamurthy.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Krishnamurthy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)