Indian Constitution: Flexible or Rigid or a mixture of both

Based upon the provisions made for its amendment, a constitution can be flexible or rigid or a mixture of both. A flexible constitution can be amended by ordinary law making exercise while a rigid constitution can be amended by a very difficult and special procedure. As regards to Indian Constitution, it strikes a balance between the rigidity and flexibility. The Constitution can be amended in three ways such as:

• The Parliament can alter or modify many of the laws of the Constitution by a simple majority as is required for ordinary legislations. For instance the Parliament can deal with the abolition or creation of Legislative Councils (Article 169). Further, the Parliament can change the name of boundaries, areas etc. of States through simple majority; and these changes don’t even need to done via a Constitutional Amendment Bill. These are examples of most flexible provisions of the constitution.
• Parliament can amend other major parts of the Constitution with special majority (a majority of not less than 2/3 of the members of each House present and majority of them voting) as mentioned in Article 368. This process can be semi-rigid and examples include those amendments needed for inclusion / exclusion of fundamental special right, special provisions for SC/ST, special provisions for some regions etc.
• The amendments to certain features affecting the federal structure of Indian State requires special majority with ratification by half of the States. Provisions related to election to the President and its manner; extent of the executive power of the Union and the states; Supreme Court and high courts etc. fall under this. These are examples of a rigid constitution.

The Parliament can also modify the constitutional provisions by supplementing them with its own laws. For instance, the addition of Citizenship Act, 1955 to Part II (Citizenship) in order to have detailed view of the citizenship laws in India is a case in point. Likewise, Article 22 (Preventive Detention) empowers the Parliament to make subsidiary provisions and upon the basis of Article 17, Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was enacted by the Parliament. In fine, the supplementing aspect of Union Legislations brings modifications and alterations by means of addition and deletion to meet the exigencies of time without having resorted to a constitutional amendment.

Questions to Analyze

• Indian constitution tilts towards “more flexible and less rigid” or “less flexible and more rigid”?
• The Basic structure doctrine adds flexibility or rigidity to the Constitution?
• Is there any flexibility / rigidity angle when Indian constitution includes both the fundamental law of the US constitution and the theory of Parliamentary sovereignty in UK?

Indian constitution tilts towards “more flexible and less rigid” or “less flexible and more rigid”?

The above study of various types of amendments makes it clear that Indian constitution is certainly more flexible than rigid. This is also evident from the fact that we have so far amended the constitution for 101 times since its enactment. Had it been rigid, it was not possible to amend it almost twice a year. The US constitution is rigid and that is why it has been amended only 33 times so far. Rigidity in constitution comes only in picture when the proposed amendment makes changes into the federal structure of the constitution. Wherever the interests of states are involved, the constitution becomes rigid.

The Basic structure doctrine adds flexibility or rigidity to the Constitution?

The Basic Structure doctrine propounded in the Kesavananda Bharati case has certainly introduced more rigidity in the constitution. In fact, wherever the question of Basic Structure comes, the constitution of India, added by its Guardian Supreme Court is “absolutely rigid” and makes it clear that Parliament cannot use its power to amend the Constitution to alter, distort or damage in anyway the basic characteristics and principles of Constitution. The list of these characteristics itself is evolving with time, and includes democracy, secularism, republic nature, independence of judiciary etc.

Is there any flexibility / rigidity angle when Indian constitution includes both the fundamental law of the US constitution and the theory of Parliamentary sovereignty in UK?

Yes. Indian Constitution is a unique agreement of both the theory of fundamental law of the US constitution and the theory of Parliamentary sovereignty of the unwritten constitution of the UK. In other words, the Constitution is not so rigid that it cannot be amended by the supreme law making body i.e. the Parliament. India chose the middle path between rigidity of the US Constitution and flexibility of the unwritten conventions of the UK in order to allow the new nation grow smoothly by accommodating changes.

The flexibility of the Indian Constitution as proven feature is established by the fact that within seven decades of functioning of the Constitution has been amended more than hundred times. The Constitutional Amendment Acts like the First, Fourth, Twenty Fourth, Twenty Fifth, Thirty Ninth, Forty-second, Forty-fourth, Seventy-third, Seventy-fourth and Ninety-seventh are vital changes so far included in the original Constitution.