9.4.1. Contents of Amendments made so far

Amendments made so far may be classified in three groups. In the first group there are amendments, which are of a technical or administrative nature and were only clarifications, explanations, and minor modifications etc. of the original provisions. They are amendments only in the legal sense, but in matter of fact, they made no substantial difference to the provisions. This is true of the amendment that increased the age of retirement of High Court judges from 60 to 62 years (15th amendment). Similarly, salaries of judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court were increased by an amendment (54th amendment). We may also take the example of the provision regarding reserved seats in the legislatures for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The original provision said that these reservations were for a period of ten years. However, in order to ensure fair representation of these sections, it was necessary to extend this period by ten years. Thus, after every ten years an amendment is made to extend the period by another ten years. This has led to six amendments so far. But these amendments have not made any difference to the original provision. In this sense, it is only a technical amendment.

This chunk discusses a specific category of constitutional amendments: those that are technical or administrative in nature. These amendments are not intended to change the substance of the laws but rather to clarify, explain, or make minor adjustments. For example, increasing the retirement age for judges or extending the term for reserved seats for certain groups are legal modifications but do not change the fundamental rights or principles outlined in the Constitution. They mainly serve to smooth out the functioning of the legal and administrative aspects of governance.

Think of these amendments like minor edits to a document. For example, if you are writing a report and realize that a sentence isn’t clear, you might revise it without changing the overall message of your report. Similarly, these technical amendments improve clarity and functionality in the Constitution without altering its core ideas.

A number of amendments are a product of different interpretations of the Constitution given by the judiciary and the government of the day. When these clashed, the Parliament had to insert an amendment underlining one particular interpretation as the authentic one. It is part of the democratic politics that various institutions would interpret the Constitution and particularly the scope of their own powers in a different manner. Many times, the Parliament did not agree with the judicial interpretation and therefore, sought to amend the Constitution to overcome the ruling of the judiciary. In the period between 1970 and 1975 this situation arose frequently. In the chapter on the Judiciary, you have already studied the issues of difference between the Judiciary and Parliament: one was the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles, the other was the scope of the right to private property and the third was the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

This section highlights how differing interpretations of the Constitution by the judiciary and Parliament can lead to amendments. For instance, if the Supreme Court interprets a law in a way that the Parliament disagrees with, the Parliament can amend the law to clarify or change that interpretation. This back-and-forth happens when the two branches of government see their powers or responsibilities differently, especially regarding essential democratic principles like fundamental rights or property rights. This was notably frequent during the early 1970s when political tensions were high.

Imagine a group project at school where each member interprets the assignment differently. If one person thinks the project needs more research and another believes it should be more creative, they might argue about the direction of the project. If they can't agree, they might decide to rewrite some parts of the project to better reflect a single vision. In a similar way, amendments are how Parliament refines the Constitution based on differing interpretations.

Thirdly, there is another large group of amendments that have been made as a result of the consensus among the political parties. We may say that this consensus made it necessary that some changes had to be made in order to reflect the prevailing political philosophy and aspirations of the society. In fact, many of the amendments of the post-1984 period are instances of this trend. Remember our question above about the peculiarity that even when there were coalition governments, this period saw so many amendments? The reason is because many of these amendments were based on an evolving consensus on certain issues. Starting with the anti-defection amendment (52nd amendment), this period saw a series of amendments in spite of the political turbulence. Apart from the anti-defection amendments (52nd and 91st), these amendments include the 61st amendment bringing down the minimum age for voting from 21 to 18 years, the 73rd and the 74th amendments, etc.

This chunk details how many constitutional amendments have emerged from consensus among political parties. Such agreements occur when parties recognize the need to adapt the Constitution to reflect the changing political sentiments and requirements of society. For example, the anti-defection laws were established to prevent political instability and corruption, while amendments to voting age reflected a shift toward empowering younger citizens. Consensus, even amid political diversity, has allowed for significant legal reforms.

Think of this like a community meeting where neighbors discuss changes to local rules. If everyone agrees that the speed limit needs to change for safety reasons, a consensus allows them to revise the rules to reflect their shared desire for safer streets. In the same way, political consensus leads to amendments in the Constitution to meet societal needs and changing attitudes.

Our discussion so far should not create an impression that there has never been any controversy over amending the Constitution. In fact, amendments during the period 1970 to 1980 generated a lot of legal and political controversy. The parties that were in opposition during the period 1971-1976 saw many of these amendments as attempts by the ruling party to subvert the Constitution. In particular, the 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments have been the most controversial amendments so far. These three amendments were made in the background of internal emergency declared in the country from June 1975. They sought to make basic changes in many crucial parts of the Constitution. The 42nd amendment was particularly seen as a wide-ranging amendment affecting large parts of the Constitution. It was also an attempt to override the ruling of the Supreme Court given in the Kesavananda case. Even the duration of the Lok Sabha was extended from five to six years. In the chapter on Rights, you have read about Fundamental Duties. They were included in the Constitution by this amendment act. The 42nd amendment also put restrictions on the review powers of the Judiciary.

This chunk emphasizes the controversies that have arisen from specific amendments to the Constitution, particularly between 1970 and 1980. The internal emergency declared in 1975 allowed the ruling party to push through changes that many felt undermined democratic principles. The amendments made during this period were criticized for being politically motivated and for reducing checks on government power, thus raising debates about the integrity of the constitutional framework itself.

Consider a school where a principal attempts to enforce new rules without consulting teachers or parents. If these rules seem unfair or too restrictive, the whole community might protest, seeing it as an abuse of power. In a similar vein, the controversial amendments during the emergency were viewed as an overreach that could jeopardize democratic freedoms, sparking a strong resistance from opposition parties and citizens alike.

--