State Ratification In Constitutional Amendments: The Definitional Ambiguities Of ‘State’
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 8
- 1 min read
Pratham Baliga, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University)
ABSTRACT
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution states that for constitutional amendments affecting federalism, a ratification is required by the legislative assemblies of one-half of the State legislative assemblies. The Indian Constitution makes a distinction between two categories of federating units- States and Union territories. However, with subsequent amendments, certain Union Territories have started to exhibit characteristics of States. The primary question that emerges is with regard to who can ratify constitutional amendments under Article 368 of the Constitution. The term ‘State’ as it occurs in the proviso to Article 368 may either be interpreted expansively to include all federating units capable of expressing assent to an Amendment Bill, or narrowly to include only those federal units classified as States in the First Schedule of the Constitution. The latter interpretation would be anomalous, and contravene the principles of federalism, in furtherance of which the requirement for State ratification was incorporated into Article 368. This paper seeks to analyse the definitional ambiguities associated with the definition of ‘State’ in context of ratification of constitutional amendments, and whether the latter category of Union territories fall within the definition of 'States' as it occurs in State ratification.
Keywords: expansive interpretation, definitional ambiguities, ratification, federalism, constitutional amendments
