Question

In which of the following cases can a Constitutional amendment be passed just by a simple majority in Parliament?

• A. Election matters
• B. Change in the name and boundaries of states
• C. Powers of the President
• D. None of the above

Hint:

Article 4 says in so many words that a law altering State names or boundaries is not an amendment for the purposes of Article 368.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Sort the Constitution into three drawers before touching the options. Drawer one holds the provisions that can be changed by an ordinary Bill with a simple majority. Drawer two holds the bulk of the Constitution, needing a special majority under Article 368, meaning a majority of the total membership of each House plus two thirds of those present and voting. Drawer three holds the federal core, needing that special majority plus ratification by at least half the State legislatures. Then ask which option sits in drawer one.

1. Election matters: The trap. Parliament does pass election laws by simple majority, the Representation of the People Act being the obvious example. But that is ordinary legislation, not a constitutional amendment, and the question asks about an amendment. The constitutional provisions on elections in Part XV cannot be touched by a simple majority. So this option answers a question that was not asked.
2. Change in the name and boundaries of states: Drawer one, and the answer. Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new States and to alter the area, boundaries or name of any State. Article 4 then says in terms that such a law is not to be deemed an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368, even though it changes the First and Fourth Schedules. So Parliament can redraw the political map with an ordinary Bill and a simple majority. The affected State's legislature is only asked for its views, and Parliament need not accept them.
3. Powers of the President: Nowhere near drawer one. The President's powers sit in the body of the Constitution and need a special majority under Article 368. The manner of his election needs ratification by half the States as well, because it touches the federal structure.
4. None of the above: Ruled out, since option (B) is a settled and much used instance. The States Reorganisation exercises were carried out by exactly this route.

So option (B) is the answer. The design point behind it is worth noting. The framers deliberately made the map of India easy to redraw, so that the Union could reorganise States as needs changed, which is why India is often described as an indestructible union of destructible States.

Let's summarize:

• Simple majority route: Articles 2, 3 and 4, creating new States and altering names, areas and boundaries, plus provisions like citizenship and Union territories.
• Special majority route: most of the Constitution, including fundamental rights and directive principles.
• Special majority plus State ratification: the federal provisions, such as the election of the President and the distribution of legislative powers.
• Article 4 expressly says a law altering State names or boundaries is not an amendment under Article 368.

A change in the name and boundaries of States needs only a simple majority, so option (B) is correct.