In a recent turn of events, the two-thirds threshold for constitutional amendments under Article 368 has been weaponised as a political tool to stage the failure of a bill. This practice, argues V Venkatesan, fundamentally defeats the constitutional spirit that underpins India's democratic framework.
The Spirit of Article 368
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It requires a special majority—a majority of the total membership of each House of Parliament and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. This high threshold was designed to ensure that amendments enjoy broad consensus, protecting the Constitution from frivolous or partisan changes. However, when this requirement is used not to build consensus but to deliberately block legislation, it undermines the very purpose of the provision.
Political Weaponisation
In recent parliamentary proceedings, the two-thirds rule has been employed as a tactical weapon. By ensuring that a bill fails to reach the required threshold, opposition parties can claim victory without engaging in substantive debate. This approach reduces constitutional amendment to a game of numbers, where the focus shifts from the merit of the proposed change to the arithmetic of votes. As a result, important legislative initiatives are stalled, and the democratic process is weakened.
Constitutional Spirit Betrayed
The framers of the Constitution intended Article 368 to be a mechanism for careful deliberation, not a tool for obstruction. When the two-thirds requirement is used to stage-manage a bill's failure, it betrays the constitutional spirit. The amendment process was meant to be a reflection of collective wisdom, not a battlefield for partisan interests. This trend, if unchecked, could lead to legislative paralysis and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
Need for Reform
To restore the integrity of the amendment process, there is a need for political parties to recommit to the constitutional ethos. This includes engaging in meaningful debate, seeking compromise, and respecting the purpose of supermajority requirements. Additionally, procedural reforms could be considered to prevent the misuse of Article 368 for narrow political gains. The goal should be to ensure that the two-thirds threshold remains a tool for consensus-building, not a weapon for obstruction.
In conclusion, the weaponisation of the two-thirds threshold under Article 368 is a dangerous trend that undermines the constitutional spirit. It is imperative for all stakeholders to recognise the gravity of this issue and work towards restoring the sanctity of the amendment process. Only then can the Constitution continue to serve as the guiding light for India's democracy.
