Case Analysis: Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachilhu and others

The question asks in which case the Supreme Court of India invalidated a Constitutional Amendment based on non-compliance with the procedure in the proviso to Article 368(2). This proviso requires ratification by state legislatures for specific types of amendments, particularly those impacting the federal structure.

The case of Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachilhu and others involved a challenge to the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, which introduced the Tenth Schedule concerning anti-defection provisions.

• A core argument presented was that this amendment should have been ratified by the states under the Article 368(2) proviso, as it was contended to affect the federal balance.
• The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the amendment procedure followed and the applicability of the proviso to Article 368(2).
• While the Court ultimately determined that the 52nd Amendment did not require state ratification and therefore upheld its validity, the case centered on a crucial judicial review concerning the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 368, specifically the state ratification requirement outlined in the proviso.

Thus, the case is significant for its thorough analysis of the Article 368(2) proviso procedural requirements in the context of a constitutional amendment, even though the final verdict upheld the amendment in question.