Correct Option
The correct option is Predominance of special majority requirements in constitutional amendments.
Explanation
Constitutional amendment procedures are broadly classified into flexible (simple majority) and rigid (special majority) types. Most modern written constitutions adopt a rigid or semi-rigid approach to ensure stability and prevent arbitrary changes by the ruling government. The primary mechanism used to achieve this rigidity is the requirement of a Special Majority.
Detailed Analysis
- India: Under Article 368, most constitutional amendments require a Special Majority (a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). Certain federal provisions further require ratification by half of the state legislatures.
- USA: The Constitution is rigid, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This relies heavily on the principle of a supermajority.
- South Africa: Section 74 of the Constitution requires a supporting vote of at least 75% (for Section 1) or two-thirds (for other chapters) of the National Assembly, emphasizing the special majority principle.
- Russia: Amendments to Chapters 3-8 require approval by at least three-fourths of the Federation Council and two-thirds of the State Duma, followed by ratification by regional legislatures.
Analysis of Options:
- Predominance of special majority requirements in constitutional amendments is Correct: All four constitutions cited rely on the principle of Special Majority (supermajority) within their legislatures to pass amendments. This is the dominant procedural safeguard in modern constitutions.
- Mandatory use of referendums across modern constitutions is Incorrect: There is no universal requirement for a referendum. For instance, India and the USA (at the federal level) do not use direct referendums for constitutional amendments.
- Relative flexibility of the Indian Constitution’s amendment process is Incorrect: While the Indian Constitution is more flexible than the American Constitution, it is not necessarily "easy" to amend compared to all others. The comparison highlights the procedural mechanism (special majority) rather than the relative ease.
- Absence of popular participation in constitutional amendments is Incorrect: It is factually incorrect to state there is a lack of people's participation in all modern constitutions. For example, the Russian Constitution mandates a Constitutional Assembly or a popular vote (referendum) for changes to fundamental chapters (Chapters 1, 2, and 9).
Key Takeaway
Special Majority is the standard mechanism in modern written constitutions (including India, USA, South Africa, and Russia) to ensure that constitutional amendments reflect a broad consensus rather than the will of a simple transient majority.