Amendment of Fundamental Rights

1. YES. Fundamental rights can be amended by adding /deleting rights consistent with todays time & requirements, PROVIDED the LS & RS consent to it.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

Hi

Thank you for your question

As preamble is teh basic structure cannot  be amended which  also  given in the Kesavananda Bharti case.But  if  we talk about  fundamental rights "yes" Fundamental rights can be amended for eg : Previously Article 31 was a fundamental right now it had gone and covered under Legal right.

Hope this will help you

Best regards,

Akshay Gupta

Hi,

Yes, fundamental rights can be amended but without altering the basic structure of the constitution. Under Article 368, Parliament can amend any part of the constitution including Fundamental Rights and the Preamble but without affecting the basic structure of the constitution.

It is nowhere defined what constitutes basic structure of the constitution but from various judgments following has emerged as elements of basic structure

• The supremacy of the constitution.
• A Sovereign, republican, and democratic system.
• The secular character of the Constitution.
• Maintenance of the separation of powers.
• The federal character of the Constitution.
• unity and integrity of India
• Judicial Review 
• Rule of law
• Principle of equality
• Free and Fair elections 
• independence of judiciary
• Powers of SC and HC

Hope this helps!

Hello,

Yes, fundamental rights can be amended as long as any amendments aren’t made to the basic structure of the constitution. The makers of the constitution owing it to their foresight allowed this document to be comprehensive and also flexible, as they assumed that the changing times would require the accommodation of certain changes to the constitution as well. This is to ensure that the document evolves and grows along with the nation. Thus, under Article 368, the powers of the Parliament to amend the constitution is unrestricted with regards to sections of the constitution they wish to amend.

*Amendment by Simple Majority
As the name suggests, an article can be amended in the same way by the Parliament as an ordinary law is passed which requires simple majority. The amendment contemplated under Articles 5-11 (Citizenship), 169 (Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States) and 239-A (Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both fir certain Union Territories) of the Indian Constitution can be made by simple majority. These Articles are specifically excluded from the purview of the procedure prescribed under Article 368.

*Amendment by Special Majority 
Articles which can be amended by special majority are laid down in Article 368. All amendments, except those referred to above come within this category and must be affected by a majority of total membership of each House of Parliament as well as 2/3rd of the members present and voting.

*Amendment by Special Majority and Ratification by States
Amendment to certain Articles requires special majority as well as ratification by states. Proviso to Article 368 lays down the said rule. Ratification by states means that there has to be a resolution to that effect by one-half of the state legislatures. These articles include Article 54 (Election of President), 55 (Manner of election of President), 73 (Extent of executive power of the Union), 162 (Extent of executive power of State), 124-147 (The Union Judiciary), 214-231 (The High Courts in the States), 241 (High Courts for Union Territories), 245-255 (Distribution of Legislative powers) and Article 368 (power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor) itself. Any list of seventh schedule or representation of states in Parliament as mentioned in the fourth schedule is also included.

eg, 

Right to property

The Constitution originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." It also provided that compensation would be paid to a person whose property has been taken for public purposes.

The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment  of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights. A new provision, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution, which provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". Thus, if a legislator made a law depriving a person of his property, there would be no obligation on the part of the State to pay anything as compensation. Furthermore, the aggrieved person would also have no right to move the court under Article 32 due to the right to property no longer being a fundamental right, though it would still be a constitutional one. If the government appeared to have acted unfairly, the action could have been challenged in a court of law by aggrieved citizens before the amendment.

The liberalisation of the economy and the government's initiative to set up special economic zones has led to many protests by farmers and have led to calls for the reinstatement of the fundamental right to private property. The Supreme Court had sent a notice to the government questioning why the right should not be brought back, but in 2010, the Court rejected the PIL.

Hence amendments can be made to rights if they’re incoherent or inconsistent with how the country as a whole functions today.