The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One

The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land:

The Amending Power under Article 368:
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
This power allows for specific changes or additions to be made to the existing constitutional provisions.
Amendments under Article 368 require a special majority in the Parliament (two-thirds of members present and voting, and an absolute majority of the total membership of each House).
Certain provisions of the Constitution, like the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution, are considered unamendable under this power.
The Power to Make New Constitutions or Completely Replace the Existing One:
This power goes beyond the scope of Article 368 and allows for the creation of an entirely new Constitution or the complete replacement of the existing one.
This power is typically exercised by a Constituent Assembly or a similar body with the specific mandate to draft a new Constitution.
The process of making a new Constitution or replacing the existing one is not subject to the constraints of Article 368 and usually involves a more extensive and involved process.
It may require the dissolution of the existing political order and the establishment of a new one.
Legal and Political Implications of this Distinction:

Scope of Changes: The amending power under Article 368 is limited to making specific changes or additions to the existing constitutional provisions. In contrast, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one allows for a more comprehensive and fundamental overhaul of the entire legal and political framework.
Degree of Difficulty: Amending the Constitution under Article 368 is generally considered a more straightforward process, as it requires a special majority in the Parliament. Creating a new Constitution or replacing the existing one, on the other hand, typically involves a more complex and challenging process, often requiring the convening of a Constituent Assembly or a similar body.
Preservation of Continuity: Amendments under Article 368 aim to preserve the overall continuity and stability of the existing constitutional framework, while the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may involve a more fundamental disruption of the political and legal order.
Implications for Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has interpreted the basic structure of the Constitution as being unamendable under Article 368. However, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may potentially allow for a reconsideration of the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Political Significance: The power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one is typically associated with significant political events, such as the creation of a new nation or a major constitutional crisis. The exercise of this power can have far-reaching political implications, potentially leading to the reconfiguration of the power dynamics and the establishment of a new political order.
In summary, the distinction between the amending power under Article 368 and the power to make new Constitutions or completely replace the existing one lies in the scope, degree of difficulty, preservation of continuity, implications for fundamental rights and the basic structure, and the political significance associated with each process. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal and political dynamics of constitutional change in India.