text:
Amendment of the Constitution of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
Constitution of India
Preamble
Parts[show]
Fundamental Rights
PART
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ IVA ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
VIII ∙ IX ∙ IXA ∙ IXB ∙ X ∙ XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV
XV ∙ XVI ∙ XVIA ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX ∙ XXI
XXII
Schedules[show]
First ∙ Second ∙ Third ∙ Fourth ∙ Fifth
Sixth ∙ Seventh ∙ Eighth ∙ Ninth
Tenth ∙ Eleventh ∙ Twelfth
Appendices[show]
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
Amendments[show]
List ∙ 1 ∙ 2 ∙ 3 ∙ 4 ∙ 5 ∙ 6 ∙ 7 ∙ 8 ∙ 9 ∙ 10 ∙ 11 ∙ 12 ∙ 13 ∙ 14 ∙ 15 ∙ 16 ∙ 17 ∙ 18 ∙ 19 ∙ 20 ∙ 21 ∙ 22 ∙ 23 ∙ 24 ∙ 25 ∙ 26 ∙ 27 ∙ 28 ∙ 29 ∙ 30 ∙ 31 ∙ 32 ∙ 33 ∙ 34 ∙ 35 ∙ 36 ∙ 37 ∙ 38 ∙ 39 ∙ 40 ∙ 41 ∙ 42 ∙ 43 ∙ 44 ∙ 45 ∙ 46 ∙ 47 ∙ 48 ∙ 49 ∙ 50 ∙ 51 ∙ 52 ∙ 53 ∙ 54 ∙ 55 ∙ 56 ∙ 57 ∙ 58 ∙ 59 ∙ 60 ∙ 61 ∙ 62 ∙ 63 ∙ 64 ∙ 65 ∙ 66 ∙ 67 ∙ 68 ∙ 69 ∙ 70 ∙ 71 ∙ 72 ∙ 73 ∙ 74 ∙ 75 ∙ 76 ∙ 77 ∙ 78 ∙ 79 ∙ 80 ∙ 81 ∙ 82 ∙ 83 ∙ 84 ∙ 85 ∙ 86 ∙ 87 ∙ 88 ∙ 89 ∙ 90 ∙ 91 ∙ 92 ∙ 93 ∙ 94 ∙ 95 ∙ 96 ∙ 97 ∙ 98 ∙ 99 ∙ 100 ∙ 101
Related topics[show]
Union List
State List
Concurrent List
Basic structure doctrine
Uniform civil code
v
t
e
Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.
However, there is another limitation imposed on the amending power of the constitution of India, which developed during conflicts between the Supreme Court and Parliament, where Parliament wants to exercise discretionary use of power to amend the constitution while the Supreme Court wants to restrict that power. This has led to the laying down of various doctrines or rules in regard to checking the validity/legality of an amendment, the most famous among them is the Basic structure doctrine as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
Contents
1 Constituent Assembly debates
2 Procedure
2.1 Types of amendments
2.2 Amendments under article 368
2.3 Rules of Procedure in Parliament
2.3.1 Private Members' Bills
2.4 Role of state legislatures
2.5 Role of Union territories
3 Limitations
4 Parts frequently amended
4.1 Fundamental Rights
4.2 Territorial changes
4.3 Transitional provisions
4.4 Democratic reform
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Constituent Assembly debates[edit]
The framers of the Constitution were neither in favour of the traditional theory of federalism, which entrusts the task of constitutional amendment to a body other than the Legislature, nor did they favour a rigid special procedure for such amendments. They also never wanted to have a British-style system where Parliament is supreme. The framers, instead, adopted a combination of the "theory of fundamental law", which underlies the written Constitution of the United States with the "theory of parliamentary sovereignty" as existing in the United Kingdom. The Constitution of India vests constituent power upon the Parliament subject to the special procedure laid down therein.[1]
During the discussion in the Constituent Assembly on this aspect, some members were in favour of adopting an easier mode of amending procedure for the initial five to ten years. Explaining why it was necessary to introduce an element of flexibility in the Constitution, Jawaharlal Nehru observed in the Constituent Assembly on 8 November 1948, "While we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, nevertheless there is no permanence in Constitutions. There should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people. Therefore, it has to be flexible ... while we, who are assembled in this House, undoubtedly represent the people of India, nevertheless I think it can be said, and truthfully, that when a new House, by whatever name it goes, is elected in terms of this Constitution, and every adult in India has the right to vote - man and woman - the House that emerges then will certainly be fully representative of every section of the Indian people. It is right that House elected so - under this Constitution of course it will have the right to do anything - should have an easy opportunity to make such changes as it wants to. But in any event, we should not make a Constitution, such as some other great countries have, which are so rigid that they do not and cannot be adapted easily to changing conditions. Today especially, when the world is in turmoil and we are passing through a very swift period of transition, what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow. Therefore, while we make a Constitution which is sound and as basic as we can, it should also be flexible ..."[1][2]
Dr. P.S. Deshmukh believed that the amendment of the Constitution should be made easier as he felt there were contradictory provisions in some places which would be more and more apparent when the provisions were interpreted, and that the whole administration would suffer, if the amendment to the Constitution was not made easy. Brajeshwar Prasad also favoured a flexible Constitution so as to make it survive the test of time. He was of the opinion that rigidity tends to check progressive legislation or gradual innovation. On the other hand, H.V. Kamath favoured ensuring procedural safeguards to avoid the possibility of hasty amendment to the Constitution.[1]
"It is said that the provisions contained in the Draft make amendment difficult. It is proposed that the Constitution should be amendable by a simple majority at least for some years. The argument is subtle and ingenious. It is said that this Constituent Assembly is not elected on adult suffrage while the future Parliament will be elected on adult suffrage and yet the former has been given the right to pass the Constitution by a simple majority while the latter has been denied the same right. It is paraded as one of the absurdities of the Draft Constitution. I must repudiate the charge because it is without foundation. To know how simple are the provisions of the Draft Constitution in respect of amending the Constitution one has only to study the provisions for amendment contained in the American and Australian Constitutions. Compared to them those contained in the Draft Constitution will be found to be the simplest. The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or a referendum ... It is only for amendments of specific matters—and they are only few—that the ratification of the State Legislatures is required. All other Articles of the Constitution are left to be amended by Parliament. The only limitation is that it shall be done by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting and a majority of the total membership of each House. It is difficult to conceive a simpler method of amending the Constitution.
What is said to be the absurdity of the amending provisions is founded upon a misconception of the position of the Constituent Assembly and of the future Parliament elected under the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly in making a Constitution has no partisan motive. Beyond securing a good and workable Constitution it has no axe to grind. In considering the Articles of the Constitution it has no eye on getting through a particular measure. The future Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in their way. Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly has none. That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the future Parliament. That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with the same power to amend it."
—  B.R. Ambedkar, speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 4 November 1948[1]
Procedure[edit]
The Constitution of India provides for a distinctive amendment process when compared to the Constitutions of other nations. It can be described as partly flexible and partly rigid. The Constitution provides for a variety in the amending process. This feature has been commended by Australian academic Sir Kenneth Wheare who felt that uniformity in the amending process imposed “quite unnecessary restrictions” upon the amendment of parts of a Constitution.[1] An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.[3] There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses. The Bill, passed by the required majority, is then presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill. If the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to article 368, it must be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. Although there is no prescribed time limit for ratification, it must be completed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent.[1]
Every constitutional amendment is formulated as a statute. The first amendment is called the "Constitution (First Amendment) Act", the second, the "Constitution (Second Amendment) Act", and so forth. Each usually has the long title "An Act further to amend the Constitution of India".
Types of amendments[edit]
The original constitution provided for three categories of amendments. The first category of amendments are those contemplated in articles 4 (2), 169 -1962, 239A (2) -1962, 239AA (7b) -1991, 243M (4b) -1992, 243ZC (3) -1992, 244A (4) -1969, 356 (1)c, para 7(2) of chitiya sala V and para 21(2) of Schedule VI.[4] These amendments can be effected by Parliament by a simple majority such as that required for the passing of any ordinary law. The amendments under this category are specifically excluded from the purview of article 368 which is the specific provision in the Constitution dealing with the power and the procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. Article 4 provides that laws made by Parliament under article 2 (relating to admission or establishment of new States) and article 3 (relating to formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States) effecting amendments in the First Schedule or the Fourth Schedule and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters, shall not be deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. For example, the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which brought about the reorganization of the States in India, was passed by Parliament as an ordinary piece of legislation. In Mangal Singh v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 944), the Supreme Court held that power to reduce the total number of members of Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed under article 170 (1) is implicit in the authority to make laws under article 4. Article 169 empowers Parliament to provide by law for the abolition or creation of the Legislative Councils in States and specifies that though such law shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the Constitution as may be necessary, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. The Legislative Councils Act, 1957, which provided for the creation of a Legislative Council in Andhra Pradesh and for increasing the strength of the Legislative Councils in certain other States, is an example of a law passed by Parliament in an exercise of its powers under article 169. The Fifth Schedule contains provisions as to the administration and control of the Schedule Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Para 7 of the Schedule vests Parliament with plenary powers to enact laws amending the Schedule and lays down that no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368. Under Para 21 of the Sixth Schedule, Parliament has full power to enact laws amending the Sixth Schedule which contains provisions for the administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. No such law will be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of article 368.
The second category includes amendments that can be effected by Parliament by a prescribed ‘special majority’; and the third category of amendments includes those that require, in addition to such "special majority", ratification by at least one-half of the State Legislatures. The last two categories are governed by article 368.[1]
Ambedkar speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 17 September 1949, pointed out that there were "innumerable articles in the Constitution" which left matters subject to laws made by Parliament.[5] Under article 11, Parliament may make any provision relating to citizenship notwithstanding anything in article 5 to 10. Thus, by passing ordinary laws, Parliament may, in effect, provide, modify or annul the operation of certain provisions of the Constitution without actually amending them within the meaning of article 368. Since such laws do not, in fact, make any change whatsoever in the letter of the Constitution, they cannot be regarded as amendments of the Constitution nor categorized as such. Other examples include Part XXI of the Constitution—"Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions" whereby "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" power is given to Parliament to make laws with respect to certain matters included in the State List (article 369); article 370 (1) (d) which empowers the President to modify, by order, provisions of the Constitution in their application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir; provisos to articles 83 (2) and 172 (1) empower Parliament to extend the lives of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of every State beyond a period of five years during the operation of a Proclamation of Emergency; and articles 83(1) and 172 (2) provide that the Council of States/Legislative Council of a State shall not be subject to dissolution but as nearly as possible one-t
Amendments under article 368[edit]
part-xx Article 368 (1) of the Constitution of India grants constituent power to make formal amendments and empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down therein, which is different from the procedure for ordinary legislation.[6] Article 368 has been amended by the 24th and 42nd Amendments in 1971 and 1976 respectively. The following is the full text of Article 368 of the Constitution, which governs constitutional amendments. New clauses 368 (1) and 368 (3) were added by the 24th Amendment in 1971, which also added a new clause (4) in article 13 which reads, "Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368."[1] The provisions in italics were inserted by the 42nd Amendment but were later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India in 1980.[4] After the 24th amendment, Article 4(2), etc. of the constitution are superseded/made void by article 368 (1) which is the only procedure for amending the constitution however marginal may be the nature of the amendment.[7] Supreme court ruled that the constituent power under article 368 must be exercised by the Parliament in the prescribed manner and cannot be exercised under the legislative powers of the Parliament.[8][9]
368. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure therefor:
(1) Notwithstanding anything[10] in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in –
(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) the provisions of this article,
the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent.
(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution (Fortysecond Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in question in any court on any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article.
As per the procedure laid out by article 368 for amendment of the Constitution, an amendment can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses. Total membership in this context has been defined to mean the total number of members comprising the House irrespective of any vacancies or absentees on any account vide Explanation to Rule 159 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.[1]
The Bill, passed by the required majority, is then presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill. If the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to article 368, it must be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. These provisions relate to certain matters concerning the federal structure or of common interest to both the Union and the States viz., the election of the President (articles 54 and 55); the extent of the executive power of the Union and the States (articles 73 and 162); the High Courts for Union territories (article 241); The Union Judiciary and the High Courts in the States (Chapter IV of Part V and Chapter V of Part VI); the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States (Chapter I of Part XI and Seventh Schedule); the representation of States in Parliament; and the provision for amendment of the Constitution laid down in article 368. Ratification is done by a resolution passed by the State Legislatures. There is no specific time limit for the ratification of an amending Bill by the State Legislatures. However, the resolutions ratifying the proposed amendment must be passed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent.[1]
Rules of Procedure in Parliament[edit]
Further information: Lawmaking procedure in India
Article 368 does not specify the legislative procedure to be followed at various stages of enacting an amendment. There are gaps in the procedure as to how and after what notice a Bill is to be introduced, how it is to be passed by each House and how the President's assent is to be obtained. This point was decided by the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458). Delivering the judgment, Patanjali Sastri J. observed, "Having provided for the constitution of a Parliament and prescribed a certain procedure for the conduct of its ordinary legislative business to be supplemented by rules made by each House (article 118), the makers of the Constitution must be taken to have intended Parliament to follow that procedure, so far as it may be applicable consistently with the express provisions of article 368, when they entrusted to it power of amending the Constitution." Hence, barring the requirements of special majority, ratification by the State Legislatures in certain cases, and the mandatory assent by the President, a Bill for amending the Constitution is dealt with the Parliament following the same legislative process as applicable to an ordinary piece of legislation. The Rules of the House in the Rajya Sabha do not contain special provisions with regard to Bills for the amendment of the Constitution and the Rules relating to ordinary Bills apply, subject to the requirements of article 368.[1]
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business make certain specific provisions regarding amendment bills in the Lok Sabha. They relate to the voting procedure in the House at various stages of such Bills, in the light of the requirements of article 368; and the procedure before introduction in the case of such Bills, if sponsored by Private Members. Although the "special majority", required by article 368 is prima facie applicable only to the voting at the final stage, the Lok Sabha Rules prescribe adherence to this constitutional requirement at all the effective stages of the Bill, i.e., for adoption of the motion that the Bill be taken into consideration; that the Bill as reported by the Select/Joint Committee be taken into consideration, in case a Bill has been referred to a Committee; for adoption of each clause or schedule or clause or schedule as amended, of a Bill; or that the Bill or the Bill as amended, as the case may be, be passed.[11]
This provision was arrived at after consultation with the Attorney-General and detailed discussions in the Rules Committee. It has been described as "evidently ex abundanti cautela", a Latin phrase, which in law, describes someone taking precautions against a very remote contingency.[1][12] By strictly adhering to article 368, the provision is intended to ensure the validity of the procedure adopted, but also guard against the possibility of violation of the spirit and scheme of that article 29 by the consideration of a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution including its consideration clause by clause being concluded in the House with only the bare quorum present. Voting at all the above stages is by division. However, the Speaker may, with the concurrence of the House, put any group of clauses or schedules together to the vote of the House, provided that the Speaker will permit any of the clauses or schedules be put separately, if any member requests that. The Short Title, Enacting Formula and the Long Title are adopted by a simple majority. The adoption of amendments to clauses or schedules of the Bill, requires a majority of members present and voting in the same manner as in the case of any other Bill.[11]
Private Members' Bills[edit]
A Bill for amendment of the Constitution by a Private Member is governed by the rules applicable to Private Members' Bills in general. The period of one month's notice applies to such a Bill also. In addition, in Lok Sabha, such a Bill has to be examined and recommended by the Committee on Private Members’ Bills before it is included in the List of Business. The Committee has laid down the following principles as guiding criteria in making their recommendations in regard to these Bills:
"(i) The Constitution should be considered as a sacred document — a document which should not be lightly interfered with and it should be amended only when it is found absolutely necessary to do so. Such amendments may generally be brought forward when it is found that the interpretation of the various articles and provisions of the Constitution has not been in accordance with the intention behind such provisions and cases of lacunae or glaring inconsistencies have come to light. Such amendments should, however, normally be brought by the Government after considering the matter in all its aspects and consulting experts, and taking such other advice as they may deem fit.
(ii) Some time should elapse before a proper assessment of the working of the Constitution and its general effect is made so that any amendments that may be necessary are suggested as a result of sufficient experience.
(iii) Generally speaking, notice of Bills from Private Members should be examined in the background of the proposal or measures which the Government may be considering at the time so that consolidated proposals are brought forward before the House by the Government after collecting sufficient material and taking expert advice.
(iv) Whenever a Private Member’s Bill raises issues of far-reaching importance and public interest, the Bill might be allowed to be introduced so that public opinion is ascertained and gauged to enable the House to consider the matter further. In determining whether a matter is of sufficient public importance, it should be examined whether the particular provisions in the Constitution are adequate to satisfy the current ideas and public demand at the time. In other words, the Constitution should be adapted to the current needs and demands of the progressive society and any rigidity which may impede progress should be avoided."[1]
Role of state legislatures[edit]
The role of the states in constitutional amendment is limited. State legislatures cannot initiate any Bill or proposal for amendment of the Constitution. They are associated in the process of the amendment only through the ratification procedure laid down in article 368, in case the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to article 368. The only other provision for constitutional changes by state legislatures is to initiate the process for creating or abolishing Legislative Councils in their respective legislatures, and to give their views on a proposed Parliamentary bill seeking to affect the area, boundaries or name of any State or States which has been referred to them under the proviso to Article 3. However, this referral does not restrict Parliament's power to make any further amendments of the Bill.[1]
Article 169 (1) reads, "Notwithstanding anything in article 168, Parliament may by law provide for the abolition of the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council or for the creation of such a Council in a State having no such Council, if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting." The proviso of article 3 provides that no bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.[1]
Role of Union territories[edit]
Union territories have no say in constitutional amendments, including the ratification process which is only open to States. Delhi and Puducherry are two union territories that are entitled, by special constitutional amendments, to have an elected Legislative Assembly and a Cabinet of ministers, thereby enjoying partial statehood powers. Both of these territories can participate in the ratification process.[13][1]
Limitations[edit]
Main article: Basic structure doctrine
The Constitution can be amended any number of times by the Parliament; but only in the manner provided. There is no such limit provided in the constitution of India which allows it to enact only certain number of amendments in a year. In other words, Parliament is free to enact any number of constitutional amendment in any given year. Although Parliament must preserve the basic framework of the Constitution, there is no other limitation placed upon the amending power, meaning that there is no provision of the Constitution that cannot be amended. In Abdul Rahiman Jamaluddin v. Vithal Arjun (AIR 1958 Bombay, 94, (1957)), the Bombay High Court held that any attempt to amend the Constitution by a Legislature other than Parliament, and in a manner different from that provided for, will be void and inoperative.[1]
The Supreme Court first struck down a constitutional amendment in 1967, ruling in the case of I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. An amendment was struck down on the basis that it violated Article 13: "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by [the charter of Fundamental Rights]". The term "law" in this article was interpreted as including a constitutional amendment. Parliament responded by enacting the twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India which declared that "nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution".
The current limitation on amendments comes from Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court ruled that amendments of the constitution must respect the "basic structure" of the constitution, and certain fundamental features of the constitution cannot be altered by amendment. Parliament attempted to remove this limitation by enacting the Forty-second Amendment, which declared, among other provisions, that "there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend ...this Constitution". However, this change was itself later declared invalid by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India.
The issue of whether an entire constitutional amendment is void for want of ratification or only an amended provision required to be ratified under proviso to clause (2) of article 368 was debated before the Supreme Court in Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu (AIR 1993 SC 412), in which the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution inserted by the 52nd Amendment in 1985 was challenged. The decisions of the Speakers/Chairmen on disqualification, which had been challenged in different High Courts through different petitions, were heard by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The case, now popularly known as Anti-Defection case, was decided in 1992. The Constitution Bench in its majority judgement upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule invalid because it was not ratified by the required number of the Legislatures of the States as it brought about in terms and effect, a change in articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. While doing so, the majority treated Paragraph 7 as a severable part from the rest of the Schedule. However, in the dissenting opinion, the minority of the Judges held that the entire Amendment is invalid for want of ratification.[1]
Parts frequently amended[edit]
See also: List of amendments of the Constitution of India
Number of constitutional amendments in India per decade.[14]
Despite the super majority requirement in the Constitution, it is one of the most frequently amended governing documents in the world, and the most amended national constitution in the world;[15] amendments have averaged about two a year. This is partly because the Constitution is so specific in spelling out government powers that amendments are often required to deal with matters that could be addressed by ordinary statutes in other democracies. As a result, it is the longest constitution of any sovereign nation in the world. It currently consists of over 117,000 words (450 articles plus 115 amendments). Another reason is that the Parliament of India is elected by means of single seat districts, under the plurality voting system, used in the United Kingdom and the United States. This means that, it is possible for a party to win two thirds of the seats in Parliament without securing two thirds of the vote. For example, in the first two Lok Sabha elections held under the Constitution, the Indian National Congress party won less than one half of the national vote but roughly two thirds of seats in the chamber.
Fundamental Rights[edit]
The most important and frequent reason for amendments to the Constitution is the curtailment of the Fundamental Rights charter. This is achieved by inserting laws contrary to the fundamental rights provisions into Schedule 9 of the Constitution. Schedule 9 protects such laws from judicial review. The typical areas of restriction include laws relating to property rights, and affirmative action in favour of minority groups such as the "scheduled castes", "scheduled tribes", and other "backward classes" and also lower classes people.
In a landmark ruling in January 2007, a nine judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India confirmed that all laws (including those in Schedule 9) would be open to judicial review if they violate the "basic structure of the constitution".[16] Chief Justice Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal noted, "If laws put in the Ninth Schedule abridge or abrogate fundamental rights resulting in violation of the basic structure of the constitution, such laws need to be invalidated".[17]
Territorial changes[edit]
Constitutional amendments have been made to facilitate changes in the territorial extent of the Republic of India due to the incorporation of the former French colony of Pondicherry, the former Portuguese colony of Goa, and a minor exchange of territory with Pakistan. Amendments are also necessary with regard to littoral rights over the exclusive economic zone of 200 mi and the formation of new states and union territories by the reorganization of existing states. Constitutional amendment under article 368 allows peaceful division of the country provided fundamental rights (Article 13) are ensured in all the resultant countries. The constitution (ninth amendment) act, 1960 is an example which has ceded territory to old Pakistan.[18]
Transitional provisions[edit]
The constitution includes transitional provisions intended to remain in force only for a limited period. These need to be renewed periodically. For example, for continuing reservation in parliamentary seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes an constitutional amendment is enacted once in every ten years.
Democratic reform[edit]
Amendments have been made with the intent of reform the system of government and incorporating new "checks and balances" in the Constitution. These have included the following:
Creation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
Creation of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
Creation of mechanisms for Panchayati Raj (local self governance).
Disqualification of members from changing party allegiance.
Restrictions on the size of the cabinet.
Restrictions on imposition of an internal emergency.
See also[edit]
List of amendments of the Constitution of India
References[edit]
{{Reflist}constitution of india
External links[edit]
Full text of the Constitution of India (as of November 2015)
Pykih Data Visualization of Constitutional Amendments
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r "Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 1 December 2013. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ "Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings) - Vol. VII". 8 November 1948. pp. 322–323. Retrieved 1 December 2013. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/intro/p5.htm This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
^ Jump up to: a b "Full text of the Constitution of India" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-06-21. Retrieved 11 August 2014. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ "Constituent Assembly Debates - Volume IX". India Kanoon. 17 September 1949. p. 1660. Retrieved 1 December 2013. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ "constituent power versus legislative power". Retrieved 23 August 2014.
Jump up ^ "Invalid Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014". Retrieved 3 August 2014.
Jump up ^ "Para 506e of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1973 SC 1461)". 1973. Retrieved 2014-12-01.
Jump up ^ "Pages 311 & 312 of A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December 1981". Retrieved 23 August 2014.
Jump up ^ "Interpretation of "notwithstanding anything"". Retrieved 5 May 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Rules 155 and 157". Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (Eleventh ed.). New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat. 2004. p. 67. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ Gray, John (2006), "Lawyer's Latin (a vade-mecum)", Hale, London, ISBN 9780709082774.
Jump up ^ "Third non-BJP state Delhi ratifies 'big reform' GST bill | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". dna. 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2017-03-27.
Jump up ^ Sharma, Dinesh; Singh, Jaya; Maganathan, R.; et al. (2002). Indian Constitution at Work. Political Science, Class XI. NCERT.
Jump up ^ Krishnamurthi, Vivek (2009). "Colonial Cousins: Explaining India and Canada's Unwritten Constitutional Principles" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Law. 34 (1): 219. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04.
Jump up ^ "Basic structure now ironcast". Times of India. Jan 12, 2007. Retrieved 2 April 2013.
Jump up ^ "India court opens laws to review". 4 April 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018 – via news.bbc.co.uk.
Jump up ^ "The constitution (ninth amendment) act, 1960". Retrieved 23 March 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India&oldid=864801816"
Categories:
Constitution of India
Amendments of the Constitution of India
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
हिन्दी
ಕನ್ನಡ
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last edited on 19 October 2018, at 15:19 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

attrs: href title

value: td

value: tr

value: th

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: b

attrs: class style

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding-top:0;

attrs: class id href

values:
/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_in_India
mw-redirect
Fundamental Rights in India

values: Part Five of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part Six of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part Seven of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part Eight of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part IX of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part IXA of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part IXB of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part Eleven of the Constitution of India

values: Part Twelve of the Constitution of India

values: Part Thirteen of the Constitution of India

values: Part Fourteen of the Constitution of India

values: Part Fifteen of the Constitution of India

values: Part XVIA of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Part Seventeen of the Constitution of India

values: Part Eighteen of the Constitution of India

values: Part Nineteen of the Constitution of India

values: Part Twenty of the Constitution of India

values: Part Twenty-one of the Constitution of India

values: Part Twenty-two of the Constitution of India

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values: First Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Second Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Third Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of India

values: Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India

values: Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India

values: Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Appendix One of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Appendix Two of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Appendix Three of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Appendix Four of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Appendix Five of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: List of amendments of the Constitution of India

values: First Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Second Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Third Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Thirty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Forty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Forty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Forty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Forty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Forty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Forty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fiftieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Fifty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixtieth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Sixty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Sixty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Sixty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Sixty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-first Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Seventy-second Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Seventy-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Eightieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Eighty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninetieth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-first Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-second Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Ninety-third Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Ninety-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: Ninety-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: One Hundredth Amendment of the Constitution of India (page does not exist)

values: One Hundred and First Amendment of the Constitution of India

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values: Edit section: Constituent Assembly debates

values:
/wiki/B.R._Ambedkar
mw-redirect
B.R. Ambedkar

values: Chambers of Parliament (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Joint_sitting
mw-redirect
Joint sitting

values:
/wiki/Plurality_voting_system
mw-redirect
Plurality voting system

values: Edit section: Amendments under article 368

values: Edit section: Rules of Procedure in Parliament

values: Edit section: Role of state legislatures

values: I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.

values: Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala

values:
/wiki/Basic_structure
mw-redirect
Basic structure

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Super_majority
mw-redirect
Super majority

values:
/wiki/Landmark_ruling
mw-redirect
Landmark ruling

values:
/wiki/Panchayati_Raj
mw-redirect
Panchayati Raj

values:
nofollow
http://constitution-of-india.pykih.com/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/487574/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/875590/
external text

values: National Council of Educational Research and Training

values:
/wiki/Yale_Journal_of_International_Law
mw-redirect
Yale Journal of International Law

values: Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: भारत के संविधान का संशोधन – Hindi

values: ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ – Kannada

values: இந்திய அரசியலமைப்புத் திருத்தச் சட்டம் – Tamil

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India rootpage-Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India skin-vector action-view


text:
Connecticut Compromise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the agreement sometimes referred to as the Great Compromise. For the song by John Prine, see The Great Compromise (song).
The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman Compromise) was an agreement that large and small states reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature as proposed by Roger Sherman, along with proportional representation of the states in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally between the states. Each state would have two representatives in the upper house.
Contents
[hide]
1 Context
2 The Compromise
3 Aftermath
4 See also
5 References
Context[edit]
On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation proposed the creation of a bicameral legislature. Under his proposal, membership in both houses would be allocated to each state proportional to its population; however, candidates for the lower house would be nominated and elected by the people of each state. This proposal allowed fairness and equality to the people. Candidates for the upper house would be nominated by the state legislatures of each state and then elected by the members of the lower house. This proposal was known as the Virginia Plan.
Less populous states like Delaware were afraid that such an arrangement would result in their voices and interests being drowned out by the larger states. Many delegates also felt that the Convention did not have the authority to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation,[1] as the Virginia Plan would have.[2] In response, on June 15, 1787, William Paterson of the New Jersey delegation proposed a legislature consisting of a single house. Each state was to have equal representation in this body, regardless of population. The New Jersey Plan, as it was called, would have left the Articles of Confederation in place, but would have amended them to somewhat increase Congress's powers.[3]
At the time of the convention, the South was growing more quickly than the North, and Southern states had the most extensive Western claims. South Carolina, North Carolina, and the State of Georgia were small in the 1780s, but they expected growth, and thus favored proportional representation. New York State was one of the largest states at the time, but two of its three representatives (Alexander Hamilton being the exception) supported an equal representation per state, as part of their desire to see maximum autonomy for the states. (The two representatives other than Hamilton had left the convention before the representation issue was resolved, leaving Hamilton, and New York State, without a vote.)
James Madison and Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional representation group. Madison argued that a conspiracy of large states against the small states was unrealistic as the large states were so different from each other. Hamilton argued that the states were artificial entities made up of individuals, and accused small state representatives of wanting power, not liberty (see History of the United States Senate).
For their part, the small state representatives argued that the states were, in fact, of a legally equal status, and that proportional representation would be unfair to their states. Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened on behalf of the small states, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."
Elbridge Gerry ridiculed the small states’ claim of sovereignty, saying “that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.”[4]
The Compromise[edit]
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: this section is disorganized and repetitive, stating the same information multiple times in different orders so it is difficult to understand the actual sequence of events Please help improve this section if you can. (May 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
On June 14, when the Convention was ready to consider the report on the Virginia plan, William Paterson of New Jersey requested an adjournment to allow certain delegations more time to prepare a substitute plan. The request was granted, and, on the next day, Paterson submitted nine resolutions embodying necessary amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which was followed by a vigorous debate. On June 19, the delegates rejected the New Jersey Plan and voted to proceed with a discussion of the Virginia Plan. The small States became increasingly discontented, and some threatened to withdraw. On July 2, the Convention was deadlocked over giving each State an equal vote in the upper house, with five States in the affirmative, five in the negative, and one divided.
The problem was referred to a committee consisting of one delegate from each State to reach a compromise. On July 5, the committee submitted its report, which became the basis for the “Great Compromise" of the Convention. The report recommended that in the upper house each State should have an equal vote and in the lower house, each State should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants,[5] counting slaves as three-fifths of an inhabitant,[5] and that money bills should originate in the lower house (not subject to amendment by the upper chamber).
After six weeks of turmoil, North Carolina switched its vote to equal representation per state and Massachusetts abstained, and a compromise was reached, being called the "Great Compromise." In the "Great Compromise," every state was given equal representation, previously known as the New Jersey Plan, in one house of Congress, and proportional representation, known before as the Virginia Plan, in the other. Because it was considered more responsive to majority sentiment, the House of Representatives was given the power to originate all legislation dealing with the federal budget and revenues/taxation, per the Origination Clause.
Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise that, in a sense, blended the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) proposals regarding congressional apportionment. Ultimately, however, its main contribution was in determining the apportionment of the Senate. Sherman sided with the two-house national legislature of the Virginia Plan but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. Branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more."[6] Although Sherman was well liked and respected among the delegates, his plan failed at first. It was not until July 23 that representation was finally settled.[6]
What was ultimately included in the constitution was a modified form of this plan, partly because the larger states disliked it. In committee, Benjamin Franklin modified Sherman's proposal to make it more acceptable to the larger states. He added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the house.
The final vote on the Connecticut Compromise on July 16th left the Senate looking to the Confederation Congress. In the preceding weeks of debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York, and Gouverneur Morris of New York each vigorously opposed the compromise for this reason.[7] For the nationalists, the Convention’s vote for the compromise was a stunning defeat. However, on July 23, they found a way to salvage their vision of an elite, independent Senate. Just before most of the convention’s work was referred to the Committee of Detail, Gouverneur Morris and Rufus King moved that state's members in the Senate be given individual votes, rather than voting en bloc, as they had in the Confederation Congress. Then Oliver Ellsworth, a leading proponent of the Connecticut Compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention adopted the Compromise.[8] Since the Convention had early acquiesced in the Virginia Plan’s proposal that senators have long terms, restoring that Plan’s vision of individually powerful senators stopped the Senate from becoming a strong safeguard of federalism. State governments lost their direct say in Congress’s decisions to make national laws. As the personally influential senators received terms much longer than the state legislators who elected them, they became substantially independent. The compromise continued to serve the self-interests of small-state political leaders, who were assured of access to more seats in the Senate than they might otherwise have obtained.[9]
Aftermath[edit]
Senate representation was explicitly protected in Article Five of the United States Constitution:
...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[10]
This agreement allowed deliberations to continue and thus led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which further complicated the issue of popular representation in the House.
See also[edit]
History of the United States Senate
Constitutional Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Three-Fifths Compromise
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Madison's notes, June 16 1787". Yale Avalon project.
Jump up ^ "Madison's notes, May 30 1787". Yale Avalon project.
Jump up ^ "Madison's notes, June 15 1787". Yale Avalon project.
Jump up ^ "Madison's notes, June 29 1787". Yale Avalon project.
^ Jump up to: a b Yazawa, Melvin (2016). Contested Conventions: The Struggle to Establish the Constitution and Save the Union, 1787–1789. JHU Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4214-2026-4.
^ Jump up to: a b US Constitution.net. "Constitutional Topic: The Constitutional Convention". Retrieved October 17, 2007.
Jump up ^ 1 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 489, 490, 551 (Max Farrand ed., 1911)
Jump up ^ 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 94-95 (Max Farrand ed., 1911)
Jump up ^ See Laurence Claus, Power Enumeration and the Silences of Constitutional Federalism http://ssrn.com/abstract=2837390
Jump up ^ National Archives and Records Administration. "The Constitution of the United states Article V". archives.gov.
[hide]
v
t
e
United States Constitution
Text
(via Wikisource)
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments 1–10
Amendments 11–27
Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments
Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution
Preamble
and articles
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments
Ratified
Bill of Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Others
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pending
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin Amendment
Child Labor
Repealed
Eighteenth Amendment
Unsuccessful
Equal Rights
District of Columbia Voting Rights
List of Amendments
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15)
Amendment proposals in Congress
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Formation
History
Articles of Confederation
Mount Vernon Conference
Annapolis Convention
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Three-Fifths Compromise
Committee of Detail
Signing
Independence Hall
Syng inkstand
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Massachusetts Compromise
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Hillsborough Convention
Rhode Island ratification
Drafting and ratification timeline
Clauses
Appointments
Appropriations
Assistance of Counsel
Bills of credit
Case or Controversy
Citizenship
Commerce
Compact
Compulsory Process
Confrontation
Contract
Copyright and Patent
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment
Exceptions
Excessive Bail
Ex post facto
Extradition
Free Exercise
Free Speech
Fugitive Slave
Full Faith and Credit
General Welfare
Guarantee
Impeachment
Import-Export
Ineligibility
Militia
Natural-born citizen
Necessary and Proper
New States
No Religious Test
Oath or Affirmation
Origination
Petition
Postal
Presentment
Privileges and Immunities
Privileges or Immunities
Recommendation
Self-Incrimination
Speech or Debate
Speedy Trial
State of the Union
Supremacy
Suspension
Take Care
Takings
Taxing and Spending
Territorial
Title of Nobility
Treaty
Trial by Jury
Vesting
Vicinage
War Powers
List of clauses
Interpretation
Concurrent powers
Congressional enforcement
Constitutional law
Criminal procedure
Criminal sentencing
Dormant Commerce Clause
Enumerated powers
Equal footing
Executive privilege
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Judicial review
Nondelegation doctrine
Preemption
Saxbe fix
Separation of church and state
Separation of powers
Taxation power
Unitary executive theory
Display
and legacy
National Archives
Charters of Freedom Rotunda
Independence Mall
Constitution Day
Constitution Gardens
National Constitution Center
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
A More Perfect Union (film)
Worldwide influence
US Government Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connecticut_Compromise&oldid=821854295"
Categories:
Drafting of the United States Constitution
History of the United States (1776–89)
1787 in the United States
Hidden categories:
Articles needing cleanup from May 2015
All pages needing cleanup
Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from May 2015
Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from May 2015
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
Español
Français
Galego
한국어
Simple English
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 23 January 2018, at 00:48.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Bicameral_legislature
mw-redirect
Bicameral legislature

value: p

attrs: role tabindex class

values: button 0 togglelink

values:
/wiki/State_of_Georgia
mw-redirect
State of Georgia

values:
/wiki/New_York_State
mw-redirect
New York State

values:
/wiki/Gunning_Bedford,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Gunning Bedford, Jr.

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-Cleanup

values: Article Five of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
mw-redirect
Three-fifths compromise

values:
nofollow
external free
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2837390

values: National Archives and Records Administration

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: s:Constitution of the United States of America

values: s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

values: s:Portal:Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution

values: s:Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

values: Preamble to the United States Constitution

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values: Article Four of the United States Constitution

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

values: List of amendments to the United States Constitution

values: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Signing of the United States Constitution

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Guarantee_Clause
mw-redirect
Guarantee Clause

values: Oath of office of the President of the United States

values: List of clauses of the United States Constitution

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: United States constitutional sentencing law

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

values: United States Constitution and worldwide influence

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Drafting of the United States Constitution

values: Category:History of the United States (1776–89)

values: Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2015

values: Category:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from May 2015

values: Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from May 2015

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: 코네티컷 타협 – Korean

values: 康涅狄格妥协 – Chinese

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Connecticut_Compromise rootpage-Connecticut_Compromise skin-vector action-view