9.0 The Riddle of a 75-Year-Old Constitution

Begin with a puzzle. The Soviet Union had four constitutions in its 74-year life (1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977). After 1991 the new Russian Federation drafted yet another in 1993. France went through five republics and at least six constitutions between 1793 and 1958. The United States Constitution, written in 1787, has been amended only 27 times in over 200 years — a different kind of stability achieved by extreme rigidity. Now look at India: one Constitution, more than seventy years old, amended 106 times by 26 January 2024, yet still recognisably the same document the Constituent Assembly signed.

How does the same Constitution continue to serve a country that has changed beyond recognition since 1950? The textbook gives a two-part answer. First, the Constitution itself accepts the necessity of modifications^? according to changing needs of society. Second, in its actual working, both political practice and judicial rulings have shown maturity and flexibility in interpretation. These two factors together turn the text from a closed and static rulebook into a living document.

9.1 Are Constitutions Static? — The Comparative Backdrop

It is not unusual for nations to rewrite their constitutions in response to changed circumstances, new ideas, or political upheavals. The makers of the Indian Constitution had to decide where India would stand on this question. Should the Constitution be so sacred that nobody could ever change it? Or so ordinary an instrument that it could be modified just like any other law? They chose neither extreme. They placed the Constitution above ordinary law and expected future generations to respect it — while recognising that on many questions there were honest differences of opinion, and that the document would need revisions, changes and re-examination over time.

9.2 Flexible or Rigid? — The Framers' Balancing Act

The makers of the Constitution wanted to strike a balance. The Constitution must be amended if so required; but it must also be protected from unnecessary and frequent changes. They wanted it to be both flexible (open to changes) and rigid (resistant to changes). A constitution that can be very easily modified is called flexible; one that is very difficult to amend is called rigid. The Indian Constitution combines both characteristics in a single document.

Why combine the two? The framers were aware of three concerns. First, there might be faults or mistakes in the original draft — no document of such size and ambition can be totally free of errors, and these should be easily corrected. Second, some provisions were of temporary nature and were to be altered later. Third, India was a federal polity^? — the rights and powers of the States could not be changed without the consent of the States. And finally, some features were so central to the spirit of the document that the framers were anxious to protect them from change altogether. These four considerations led to three different procedures for amending the Constitution.

9.3 Article 368 — The Constitution's Engine of Change

Article 368 is the master switch. Two key principles underpin it. First, all amendments to the Constitution are initiated only in Parliament. No outside agency — no constitution commission, no separate body — can begin the process. Second, after passage in Parliament (and where required, in State legislatures), no referendum is needed. The amendment bill goes to the President for assent like any other bill, but unlike other bills, in this case the President has no power to send it back for reconsideration. These two principles together underline a crucial democratic idea: only elected representatives of the people are empowered to consider and take final decisions on amendments. The basis of the amendment procedure is parliamentary sovereignty.

9.4 The Three Procedures for Amendment

The Constitution prescribes three different routes by which it can be amended, depending on which provision is being modified. These three routes match the three concerns of the framers: easy correction, parliamentary supremacy with consensus, and protection of federal balance.

Procedure 1 — Simple Majority (Articles marked “by law”)

Many articles in the Constitution can be amended by a simple law of Parliament. No special procedure is required, and there is no difference at all between such an “amendment” and an ordinary law. These parts of the Constitution are very flexible. Read carefully two articles where the wording “by law” indicates this simple route.

Notice the words: by law. They tell us that these articles can be modified by Parliament without any recourse to the procedure laid down in Article 368. Many other articles — relating to citizenship, to the formation, alteration of names and boundaries of States, to certain provisions about scheduled areas — can be modified in this simple manner. These flexible parts of the Constitution explain why the 7th Amendment of 1956 (which reorganised the States on linguistic lines) could be carried out without grinding through Article 368's tougher routes.

Procedure 2 — Special Majority (Article 368)

For the remaining parts of the Constitution, Article 368 itself takes over. The first method here is amendment by a special majority of the two Houses of Parliament. Let us be precise about what “special majority” means in the case of an amendment bill.

Look at the arithmetic. In the Lok Sabha there are 545 members. So any amendment must be supported by a minimum of 273 members (half the total strength). Even if only 300 members are present, the bill must still get the support of 273 of them. If 400 members vote, it must additionally clear the two-thirds threshold among those voting. This double test — majority of total strength and two-thirds of those voting — is the heart of special majority^?. And both Houses must pass the bill separately. If the ruling party has only a thin majority, it can pass ordinary laws and budgets without opposition support — but it cannot amend the Constitution without taking some opposition parties into confidence.

Notice that Dr Ambedkar speaks not only of parliamentary majorities. He refers to “sharing of the views by the general public”. The principle behind the special majority is therefore the principle of public opinion: there must be broad support among political parties and parliamentarians, not merely the will of one ruling party.

Procedure 3 — Special Majority + Ratification by Half the States

For some articles even special majority is not sufficient. When an amendment aims to modify provisions related to the distribution of powers between the States and the central government, or articles related to representation of States in Parliament, the States must be consulted and must give their consent. Federalism means that the powers of the States cannot be at the mercy of the Centre.

The Constitution ensures this by requiring that the legislatures of at least half of the States must pass the amendment bill before it can come into effect. For some parts of the Constitution, in other words, a wider consensus across the polity is expected. This provision respects the States and gives them participation in the process. At the same time, the procedure remains somewhat flexible even in its more rigid format: only half the States are required (not all), and a simple majority of each State legislature is sufficient (not special majority). The amendment process is therefore not impracticable, but it is genuinely federal.

9.5 Article 368 — The Process Step by Step

Imagine an amendment to the Constitution making its way through the system. The textbook describes the journey, but a flowchart helps you see it whole.

9.6 Two World Principles — Where India Stands

The textbook places India alongside other modern democracies. Two principles dominate amendment procedures across the world.

India does not use a referendum. The framers chose the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: the elected representatives are themselves an expression of the people's will, and their special majority — backed by ratification of half the States in federal matters — is treated as a sufficient democratic test.

9.7 Why Are Amendments Needed at All?

Why does any constitution need amendments? The framers identified three reasons that we have already encountered, but let us put them together as one answer.

9.8 The Bridge to Part 2

You now have the architecture: a Constitution that is flexible where flexibility helps, rigid where rigidity protects, and federal where federal balance demands consent. You also have the engine: Article 368, with three procedures and a clear principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In Part 2 we will turn the engine on. We will travel through the major amendments — the 1st of 1951, the 7th of 1956, the 24th of 1971, the controversial 38th, 39th and 42nd of 1976, the corrective 44th of 1978, the path-breaking 73rd and 74th of 1992, the 86th of 2002 (RTE), the 99th of 2014 (NJAC), the 101st of 2016 (GST), the 103rd of 2019 (10% EWS reservation) — and ask: what changed, and why?