Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Evaluate the arguments in favor of making the amendment process more flexible versus keeping it more rigid. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach, and how do they balance the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution?
ARTICLE 368: provides power and procedure to Parliament for constitutional amendments.
Supreme Court vs Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) evolved the basic structure of doctrine and consolidated the balance between rigidity and flexibility.
Arguments of the Petitioners: They argued that fundamental rights were violated. He pleaded to the court to receive recourse.
Flexible Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Rigid Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Balance Approach: Maintains core principle of rigidity, allows flexibility elsewhere. Periodic review ensures relevance, reflecting societal needs for resilience and responsiveness.
Thus, balances the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution.
The Arguments for a More Flexible versus a More Rigid Amendment Process
The debate around the flexibility versus rigidity of the constitutional amendment process in India involves weighing the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution.
Arguments in Favor of a More Flexible Amendment Process:
Responsiveness to Change: A more flexible amendment process would allow the Constitution to be more responsive to evolving societal, economic, and political circumstances. This could ensure the Constitution’s continued relevance and prevent it from becoming outdated or irrelevant.
Addressing Emerging Challenges: A flexible amendment process could enable the Constitution to be updated more readily to address new and emerging challenges, such as technological advancements, environmental concerns, or global developments.
Maintaining Legitimacy: If the amendment process is perceived as too rigid, it may erode the Constitution’s legitimacy, as the people and their elected representatives may feel that the Constitution is not adequately reflecting their will and aspirations.
Preventing Constitutional Ossification: A rigid amendment process could lead to the Constitution becoming ossified and unable to adapt to changing realities, which could undermine its effectiveness and long-term viability.
Arguments in Favor of a More Rigid Amendment Process:
Preserving Stability and Continuity: A more rigid amendment process helps to ensure the stability and continuity of the constitutional order, which is essential for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Safeguarding the Basic Structure: A rigid amendment process, with the basic structure doctrine in place, can help to protect the core principles and values of the Constitution from being easily altered or undermined.
Preventing Hasty or Arbitrary Changes: A more rigid amendment process can help to prevent hasty or arbitrary changes to the Constitution, which could be driven by short-term political considerations or the whims of the ruling party.
Promoting Consensus-Building: A more rigorous amendment process, requiring a higher threshold of support, can encourage greater consensus-building and deliberation among different stakeholders, ensuring that changes to the Constitution have broad-based support.
Balancing Stability and Adaptability:
The challenge lies in striking the right balance between stability and adaptability in the constitutional amendment process.
A completely rigid amendment process may risk the Constitution becoming outdated and disconnected from the evolving needs of the country. However, a highly flexible process could undermine the foundational principles and values that the Constitution is intended to protect.
The courts have played a crucial role in this balance, through the development of the basic structure doctrine and the interpretation of the scope and limits of the amendatory power. The courts have sought to preserve the core elements of the Constitution while allowing for necessary changes.
Ultimately, the appropriate level of flexibility or rigidity in the amendment process should be determined through a careful consideration of the specific context, the need for stability and adaptability, and the broader constitutional and political landscape.