Q.Which of the following are involved in amendment of the Indian Constitution and how: Voters, President, State Legislatures, Parliament, Governors, Judiciary?

The Indian Constitution's amendment procedure involves elected legislators at two levels, plus the judiciary as an interpretive check — but not voters or Governors directly.

a. Voters: Not directly involved. India's amendment procedure gives no role to a referendum or direct public vote — unlike some other countries (the chapter notes Switzerland as an example where people can even initiate an amendment). Voters influence amendments only indirectly, by electing the Parliament (and, where relevant, the State legislators) that actually decides on amendments.

b. President of India: Every amendment bill passed by Parliament goes to the President for assent. But for an Article 368 amendment bill, the President has no power to withhold assent or send the bill back for reconsideration, unlike with an ordinary bill — assent here is effectively a formality that completes the process.

c. State Legislatures: For amendments that touch the distribution of power between the Centre and the States, or matters of representation, the bill must additionally be ratified — passed by a simple majority — in the legislatures of at least half of India's States, in addition to being passed by Parliament with special majority.

d. Parliament: Parliament is where every constitutional amendment is initiated and where the core of the amendment procedure plays out. Amendment bills must be passed separately by both Houses, each with special majority (a majority of the total membership of that House, and support of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting).

e. Governors: Not directly involved in the amendment procedure; the chapter does not assign the Governor any formal role in passing or ratifying constitutional amendments (unlike the State Legislature itself, which does have a role for certain amendments).

f. Judiciary: The Judiciary cannot initiate a constitutional amendment. But it plays a crucial interpretive role: since the Kesavananda Bharati ruling (1973), it is the final authority for deciding whether a particular amendment violates the Constitution's basic structure, and it has, in this way, shaped the practical meaning and limits of the amendment power itself.