Amendment of constitutions: India, USA, UK, France and Switzerland

1. Why constitutions must be amendable

• Society changes. A constitution made for one generation must serve later ones. Jefferson thought each generation should be free to remake its laws.
• Defects appear in working that the framers could not foresee.
• Judicial interpretation may need to be corrected, as the American Eleventh Amendment reversed a Supreme Court decision on suits against States, and the Sixteenth permitted a federal income tax after the Court had struck one down.
• Without a legal way to change it, change comes by revolution. A sound amending process is a safety valve.

Against this, the procedure must not be so easy that the constitution loses its superiority over ordinary law. The balance between rigidity and flexibility is a measure of a good constitution.

2. General methods

1. By the ordinary legislature by ordinary procedure (flexible): UK.
2. By the legislature with a special majority, usually two-thirds: India for most provisions.
3. By the legislature with ratification by the federal units: USA; India for federal provisions.
4. By referendum of the people, sometimes with a majority of units as well: Switzerland, Australia, and France in one route.
5. By a specially elected constituent body or convention: provided for in the American Article V but never used.

3. United Kingdom

The British constitution is flexible. Parliament is sovereign and there is no distinction between constitutional and ordinary law, so any part of the constitution can be changed by an ordinary Act passed by both Houses and assented to by the Crown. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 allow the Commons to pass most bills over the Lords' objection after a delay of one session. Major constitutional changes made in this way include the Parliament Act 1911, the Life Peerages Act 1958, the European Communities Act 1972 and its repeal, the Human Rights Act 1998, devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (1998), the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 creating a Supreme Court, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, itself repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. Conventions change by practice without any formal step.

Referendums have been used on constitutional questions (devolution 1997, the alternative vote 2011, Scottish independence 2014, EU membership 2016) but they are advisory in law, not part of any required procedure.

4. United States (Article V)

The American constitution is among the most rigid in the world. Article V provides two methods of proposal and two of ratification.

• Proposal: (a) by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress; or (b) by a national convention called by Congress on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States (34 of 50). Every amendment so far has been proposed by Congress.
• Ratification: (a) by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States (38 of 50); or (b) by conventions in three-fourths of the States, as Congress chooses. Only the Twenty-first Amendment (1933, repealing prohibition) was ratified by State conventions.
• The President has no role: a proposed amendment is not sent to him for signature.
• Entrenched limit: no State may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

Only 27 amendments have been adopted since 1789, the first ten (the Bill of Rights) in 1791 and the last in 1992. Change has come chiefly through judicial interpretation and usage. Critics point out that States containing a small fraction of the population can block an amendment.

5. France (Fifth Republic, Article 89)

The Constitution of 4 October 1958 provides for revision under Article 89.

• Initiative belongs concurrently to the President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Prime Minister, and to members of Parliament.
• Passage: the bill must be passed by both Houses (the National Assembly and the Senate) in identical terms.
• Ratification: it then becomes final when approved by referendum. But a government bill need not go to referendum if the President decides to submit it to Parliament convened in Congress (both Houses sitting together at Versailles), where it must be approved by a three-fifths majority of the votes cast. Almost all revisions have taken the Congress route; the March 2024 revision guaranteeing the freedom to have an abortion is a recent example.
• Limits: no revision may be started or continued while the integrity of the territory is under threat, and the republican form of government cannot be the subject of revision.

De Gaulle used a second, contested route in 1962: he submitted the introduction of direct election of the President directly to referendum under Article 11, bypassing Parliament. It was approved, and the Constitutional Council declined jurisdiction over a law adopted by the people.

6. Switzerland

The Swiss Federal Constitution of 1999 (in force from 1 January 2000, replacing those of 1848 and 1874) distinguishes total and partial revision. Its distinctive feature is direct democracy.

• Popular initiative: 100,000 citizens may, within 18 months, demand a partial revision, either as a general proposal or as a fully drafted text; or demand a total revision.
• Proposal by the Federal Assembly: either chamber (the National Council or the Council of States) may propose a revision.
• Mandatory referendum with a double majority: every amendment must be approved by a majority of the people voting nationally and a majority of the cantons. The popular vote in each canton decides that canton's vote; six half-cantons count as half a vote each, giving 23 cantonal votes.
• Total revision: if the people initiate it, or if the two chambers disagree, the people first vote on whether there should be a total revision; if they say yes, both chambers are re-elected to carry it out.

The Swiss amend their constitution often, usually several times a year, because initiatives are easy to launch. The double majority protects the smaller cantons: an amendment with a popular majority can fail for want of a cantonal majority.

7. India (Article 368)

1. Simple majority, outside Article 368: formation of new States and alteration of boundaries (Articles 2–4), creation or abolition of Legislative Councils (Article 169), and certain provisions of the Schedules. These are expressly not amendments for the purposes of Article 368.
2. Special majority: a majority of the total membership of each House and two-thirds of the members present and voting, each House separately. This covers most of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
3. Special majority plus ratification by half the State legislatures: for the provisions in the proviso to Article 368(2), such as the election of the President, the extent of executive power of Union and States, the Supreme Court and High Courts, the distribution of legislative powers, representation of States in Parliament, and Article 368 itself. The Goods and Services Tax (101st Amendment, 2016) went this way.

There is no joint sitting for an amendment bill, the President must give assent (24th Amendment, 1971), and no referendum is needed. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 INSC 91, held that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure. India has amended its constitution more than a hundred times, which shows how flexible the special-majority route is in practice.

8. Comparison at a glance

How this is examined

Either as “What is the need for constitutional amendment? Explain the process of amendment of the US Constitution” (January 2026) or as a two-country question (France and Switzerland, January 2026). Begin with a paragraph on the need for amendment and the general methods, then give the country procedures under headings, and end with a comparison: Britain the most flexible, Switzerland the most democratic, the USA the most difficult in practice, India a deliberate mixture.