Criticism of the Amendment Procedure

Although the amendment process is designed to ensure stability and broad consensus, it has not been without criticism. Critics argue that:

• Rigidity: The requirement of a special majority and, in certain cases, state ratification can make the process overly rigid, hindering necessary constitutional adaptations to modern challenges.
• Concentration of Power: The process grants significant power to Parliament and the executive, leading to concerns that it may marginalize direct public participation in constitutional changes.
• Judicial Overreach: The invocation of the basic structure doctrine by the judiciary, while aimed at protecting the Constitution, has been criticized as an example of judicial overreach that may encroach upon the domain of the legislature.
• Ambiguity: Certain provisions in Article 368 are viewed as ambiguous, leading to varied interpretations regarding what constitutes an amendment that affects the basic structure.

These criticisms highlight the ongoing debate over whether the existing amendment procedure strikes the right balance between flexibility and constitutional stability.