Abstract

This paper compares the process of constitutional amendments in India, the United States and France. India has a flexible amendment system as provided by its Constitution in Article 368, but the Basic Structure Doctrine protects the basic principles from being changed. On the other hand, the U. S. Constitution, under Article V, is extremely rigid, requiring two-thirds majority in Congress and ratification by three-fourths (3/4) of state legislatures, so amendments occur very rarely, but when they do, they tend to be very stable. France's Article 89 allows for amendments by a three-fifths vote of parliament or by referenda, a good mix between representative and direct democracy. While these are obviously very different systems, they each represent a unique form of constitutional flexibility. This paper centers on the complicated interaction of public sentiment, the state legislatures and judicial review in the creation of constitutional amendments, and stresses the importance of federalism and decentralization on the amendment process (in different systems). Nonetheless all three countries strive to amend their constitutions in the face of modern problems but with both distinct advantages and disadvantages. This study, therefore, provides valuable insights into the trajectory of constitutional law—highlighting both the pivotal function of amendments and their essential role in safeguarding democratic governance.

Keywords