The blend of rigidity and flexibility in the procedure for amendment

The procedure for amendment is ‘rigid’ in so far as it requires a special majority and a special procedure.

There is no separate body for amending the Constitution, as exists in some other countries (e.g., a Constitutional convention)

The State Legislatures cannot initiate any Bill or proposal for amendment of the constitution.

Subject to the provisions of Art. 368, Constitution Amendment Bills are to be passed by the Parliament in the same way as Ordinary Bills.

The procedure for joint session is not applicable to Bills for amendment of the constitution.

The Previous sanction of the President is not required for introducing any Bill for amendment of the Constitution.

The requirement relating to ratification by which the state Legislatures is more liberal than the corresponding provisions in the American constitution. The latter requires ratification by their fourths of the states.

The amendment of Art. 368 in 1971 has made it obligatory for the President to give his assent to a Bill for amendment of the Constitution. When it is presented to him after its passage by the Legislature {ref: 24^th Amendment 1971}.

Whether Fundamental Rights are Amendable

Until the case of Golak Nath Supreme Court held that no part of our Constitution was unamendable.

In Golak Nath’s case (1967) a majority of six judges, in a special bench of eleven , overruled previous decisions and held that if any of such rights is to be amended, a new Constitution Assembly must be convened for marking a new Constitution or radically changing it.

Constitution (24^th Amendment) Act, 1971 held that an amendment of the Constitution passed in accordance with art, 368, will not be law within the meaning of Art. 13 and the validity of a Constitution Amendment act shall not be questioned on the ground that it takes away or affects a fundamental right {Reef: Art 368 (3)}

Validity of the 24^th Constitution Amendment Act itself was challenged in the case of Keshavananda Bharati.

In the case of Keshvananda Bharati the Supreme court overruled its own decision given in the case of Golak Nath and held that the Parliament could amend any provision of the constitution including fundamental rights in accordance with.