3 months ago
2
As India celebrates its 77th Republic Day connected Monday (January 26, 2026), its founding papers — the Constitution — has seen 106 amendments. Indira Gandhi’s 16-year tenure as Prime Minister saw the highest fig of amendments (29), while Chandra Shekhar’s seven-month tenure saw the slightest (1). Under its existent PM, Narendra Modi, India’s Constitution has seen 8 amendments of which lone 1 has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
In Mr. Modi’s eleven-year tenure, the Parliament passed five law amendments successful his first term (2014-2019) and 3 successful his 2nd word (2019-2024). The 99th Amendment — Modi government’s first effort to amend the Constitution — allowed for the enactment of National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to recruit, appoint, transportation judicial officers including judges, thereby replacing the Collegium. It was immediately struck down by the Supreme Court arsenic ‘unconstitutional’.
The archetypal amendments woody with judicial appointments, India’s overseas argumentation with Bangladesh and overhauling of India’s taxation. However, the remaining amendments person altered India’s societal cloth amending laws for communities — Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and women.
Here’s a look at the amendments enacted successful Mr. Modi’s archetypal term, their effects and criticism:
NJAC Act (2014)
First envisaged by the V.P. Singh authorities successful 1990, the National Judicial Commission was proposed as a law amendment but failed to pass the Parliament hurdle then. In 2003, the Vajpayee authorities proposed a five-member panel comprising of Chief Justice of India, 2 Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister and an eminent citizen nominated by the President to determine on appointments of Supreme Court and for transportation and assignment of High Court judges, the sheet would besides see the State High Court’s Chief Justice and the Chief Minister. However, this connection excessively soon died.
In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment on with the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and paved way to establish the NJAC instead of the Collegium system. This six-member commission, comprising of the CJI, 2 elder Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister and 2 eminent citizens, was empowered to marque appointments to the Supreme Court and assorted High Courts. Of the 2 nominated members, 1 had to beryllium to SC/ST/OBC/minorities classes oregon beryllium a woman. Both were to beryllium nominated by a Committee comprising the CJI, the PM and the Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha). The Judges successful the panel had veto powerfulness for any projected appointments.
After the Bills’ passage, sixteen State Legislatures ratified it and the President gave his assent to it connected December 31, 2014. By April 2015, both Bills came into force.
However, the Supreme Court struck down both Acts arsenic unconstitutional, upholding the Collegium system — a forum of the CJI and 4 senior-most Supreme Court judges which recommends appointments to the higher judiciary and transfers of judges. Though not mentioned successful the Constitution, this strategy has its ineligible ground successful 3 Supreme Court judgments. In a 4:1 ruling, with Justice J. Chelameswar being the lone dissenter, the Supreme Court observed that the ‘judiciary cannot hazard being caught successful a web of indebtedness towards the government’.
“Primacy of the judiciary and assignment of High Court and Supreme Court judges and transportation of High Court judges is portion of the basal operation of the Constitution,” opined retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay Oka, adding, “You can’t bring successful a strategy which provides that the Chief Justice of India volition not person primacy, which was wherefore NJAC was struck down”.
Stating that the Collegium strategy is justified by respective Supreme Court judgements, Mr. Oka added, “There are respective cases where the Collegium’s performance has not been upto the mark, but that does not marque the strategy itself bad. For the proposal for a High Court judge, by them clip it reaches the Supreme Court Collegium, it has the High Court Collegium’s file, Chief curate and Governor’s remarks [on the candidacy] and an inquiry report by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), which is wholly controlled by the Centre”.
“Once the Supreme Court recommends, the authorities tin nonstop it backmost for reconsideration after stating reasons. Once reconsidered and resubmitted [by SC collegium], the authorities has nary prime but to motion connected the recommendation. But successful the recent 10-15 years, it is seen that erstwhile collegium recommends a name, the authorities keeps it pending for 9 months, sometimes upto one year,” noted Mr. Oka.
He claimed that this hold discourages bully candidates from accepting judgeship arsenic once consented, they indispensable halt backstage practice. Conceding that a fewer undeserving candidates person been elevated by the Collegium, helium affirmed that hold from the government’s side remains the main contented and not the strategy itself.
“Prior to the Collegium system, the Indira Gandhi authorities superseded 3 elder judges of the Supreme Court lone due to the fact that they were portion of the bulk successful the Kesavananda Bharti judgement,” noted Mr. Oka, adding that successful immoderate cases the authorities has been proactive. “When Justice B.R. Gavai was Chief Justice, fourteeen names were recommended and each were cleared wrong 3 months by the government. This has ne'er happened before,” helium said, pointing to the selective attack taken by the Centre.
However, determination has been a disposable thaw recent months. Current CJI Surya Kant has said that the Supreme Court would see a plea seeking to revive the NJAC. “Some bench may consciousness NJAC whitethorn need reconsideration and it volition spell to a larger bench. While I don’t know if this is simply a possibility, if it happens, I volition feel very bad,” Mr. Oka had opined.
Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) with Bangladesh (2015)
Border issues between India and Bangladesh have been tackled by respective treaties betwixt the 2 nations including the Nehru-Noon Agreement (1958), Swaran Singh-Ahmed Sheikh Agreement (1959), and Land Boundary Agreement (1974). However nether the 1974 Agreement, three disputes remained — speech of enclaves, colony of 6.5 kms of non-demarcated land border, and adverse possessions of land. After eleven years of coordinated work by the Joint Boundary Working Group (JBWG), in August 2011, a protocol was signed agreeing to joint borderline maps and was immediately ratified by Bangladeshi Parliament. After initiating the law amendment in 2013, the Manmohan Singh government, however, failed to pass it done Parliament.
On June 6, 2015, Mr. Modi signed the final pact with his past Bangladeshi counterpart Sheikh Hasina, ratifying the 41-year-old woody to swap enclaves nether the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement. With this,15,000 residents in 51 Bangladeshi enclaves wrong West Bengal became Indians portion residents of 111 Indian enclaves located deep wrong Bangladesh became citizens of the neighbouring country. Parliament unanimously passed the Bill with bipartisan support and enactment of Chief Ministers of the 5 States bordering Bangladesh – West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
Goods and Services Tax (GST) (2017)
The conception of a azygous taxation operation for Goods and Services (GST) was first envisaged successful 2002 by the Vajpayee government but fructified lone successful 2017. Introduced successful the Lok Sabha successful 2014, the 101st Constitutional Amendment along with 4 Bills — the Central GST Bill, 2017; the Integrated GST Bill, 2017; the GST (Compensation to States) Bill, 2017; and the Union Territory GST Bill, 2017 allowed for a azygous indirect taxation authorities to beryllium implemented across India.
The GST Council, comprising of Centre and States, recommended a four-tier taxation operation — 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% for all goods but indispensable goods specified arsenic earthy nutrient items, prime healthcare products, acquisition services, petrol, diesel and alcohol. After the transition of this law amendment by Parliament in 2016, fifteen States archetypal ratified it. While President Pranab Mukherjee gave his assent to the Bill connected September 8, 2016 and the caller authorities came into unit connected July 1, 2017, the past State to ratify the Bill was West Bengal connected August 8, 2017.
Through the years, States person complained of little devolution of its shares by the Centre and objected to inclusion of respective items to the taxed list. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that some Centre and State person “equal, simultaneous and unsocial powers” to marque laws connected Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding connected them. It also upheld a Gujarat High Court verdict that the Centre cannot levy Integrated GST connected water freight from Indian importers.
Subsequently in September 2025, Centre simplified the GST operation to 2 tiers – 5% and 18%, portion ultra luxury items pull a 40% taxation and baccy and related products proceed to beryllium successful the 28% plus Cess category.
EWS reservation (2019)
Three months prior to the Lok Sabha polls, on January 9, 2019, Parliament hurriedly passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, giving a separate 10% preservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) successful acquisition and employment. Existing reservation to SCs, STs, SEBCs and OBCs remained unchanged and the reservation became applicable to jobs successful some Central and State governments. States became empowered to determine the economical criteria for recognition of beneficiaries. Opposition MPs had sought to notation the Bill to Select Committee, questioning the timing of the Bill. However, the Act passed and promptly received the President’s assent wrong 2 days.
In November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the Act successful a 3:2 bulk ruling, with then-CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat successful the minority. The tribunal ruled that preservation was an “instrument of affirmative enactment by the state” and should see immoderate ‘disadvantaged weaker section’. The bulk held that it did not interruption the Basic Structure of the Constitution or the 50% ceiling connected reservations.
Disagreeing with the majority’s opinion, Mr. P.D.T. Achary, erstwhile Secretary General of Lok Sabha said, “Reservation itself is simply a tenable objection provided to SC,ST and OBC because of what they person suffered done centuries oregon millennia- social degradation and disabilities. You cannot person equality between unequals. It does beg the question whether preservation of 10% for EWS is indispensable oregon not, because EWS is exclusively meant for the precocious caste people, economically weaker sections among them”.
Even the Supreme Court’s dissenting sentiment noted that exclusion of SC/ST/OBC/SEBC communities from the EWS quota was ‘heaping injustice based connected their past disability’ and that it destroyed the Equality Code of the Constitution. Breach of the 50% ceiling with this quota would go “a gateway for further infractions and effect in compartmentalisation,” noted Justice Bhat.
The Constitutional Amendments enacted successful PM Modi’s 2nd word are explored successful the 2nd portion of this article. The 2018 NCBC amendment is besides explored determination on with its accompanying 2021 amendment.
