Rigid Flexible Constitution: Article 368 Explained

Rigid flexible constitution is the term used for India's Constitution because it blends the rigidity of a document that is hard to change with the flexibility of one that can respond quickly to changing needs. Unlike constitutions that are either wholly rigid (like the US Constitution) or wholly flexible (like the UK's unwritten arrangement), India's amending process under Article 368 offers three separate routes depending on which part of the Constitution is being altered. This dual character was a deliberate choice of the framers, meant to protect core constitutional values while still allowing the document to evolve.

Article 368 and the Power to Amend

Article 368 vests Parliament with constituent power to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal of any provision, following the procedure the article itself lays down. An amendment can be initiated only by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament — not in a state legislature — and the Bill may be moved by a minister or a private member without needing the President's prior permission. Once passed by each House with the required majority, the Bill goes to the President, who must give assent, after which the Constitution stands amended in the terms of the Bill. Since the 24th Constitutional Amendment made presidential assent obligatory, the President can no longer withhold or sit on a duly passed constitutional amendment Bill.

Each House must pass an amendment Bill separately; there is no provision for a joint sitting to resolve disagreement between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, unlike the procedure for ordinary legislation.

Three Methods of Amending the Constitution

Not every change to the Constitution goes through Article 368's special procedure. Several provisions can be altered by Parliament through simple legislation, while the rest require either a special majority or a special majority combined with ratification by the states.

Method	Majority required	What it covers
Simple majority	Ordinary majority of members present and voting in each House	Matters outside Article 368's scope — e.g., admission/creation of new states, alteration of state boundaries or names, creation or abolition of state legislative councils, salaries and privileges of MPs, citizenship, delimitation of constituencies, administration of Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas
Special majority	Majority of the total membership of each House, and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting	Most provisions of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles
Special majority + state ratification	Special majority in Parliament, plus ratification by not less than half the state legislatures (by simple majority)	Provisions touching the federal structure — e.g., election of the President, extent of Union and state executive powers, the Supreme Court and High Courts, distribution of legislative powers in the Seventh Schedule, representation of states in Parliament, and Article 368 itself

Changes made through the simple-majority route are, notably, not treated as "amendments" of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. For amendments requiring state ratification, the Constitution prescribes no time limit within which states must act.

Compared with some federations, India's amendment process is markedly more accessible: even federal provisions need ratification by only half the states, against the three-fourths threshold under the US Constitution, and in India only Parliament — not the states — can initiate a constitutional amendment.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The rigidity of India's Constitution is reinforced by a judicially evolved limitation on Parliament's amending power: the basic structure doctrine. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's "basic structure" — features such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government.

Parliament initially resisted this limitation. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368, declaring that there was no limitation on Parliament's constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in court on any ground, including violation of Fundamental Rights. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down these clauses, holding that judicial review is itself part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded, and that a body possessing a limited amending power cannot use that very power to convert itself into one with unlimited power.

In Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980), the Court clarified that the basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. Consistent with this cut-off, laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule by amendments after that date do not enjoy automatic immunity from judicial review and can be tested against the Constitution's basic or essential features.

The doctrine has also been used to strike down individual amendments for procedural defects. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which barred court jurisdiction over disqualification decisions under the anti-defection law — was invalid because it fell within the proviso to Article 368(2) (affecting the jurisdiction of courts) and had not been ratified by the states as required.

Why the Blend Matters

The three-tier amendment process, combined with the basic structure doctrine, keeps the Constitution rigid enough to protect its foundational values from transient parliamentary majorities, yet flexible enough that routine administrative matters can be adjusted without the delay of a full Article 368 process.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

Article 368 lays down the procedure for constitutional amendment; it does not cover every kind of amendment.
Constitution amendment Bills need no prior presidential permission to be introduced and can be moved by a private member.
There is no joint sitting provision for a constitutional amendment Bill in case of disagreement between the two Houses.
The basic structure doctrine originates from the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

Mains

Discuss how the blend of rigidity and flexibility in the Indian amending process reflects the framers' balancing of adaptability against constitutional stability. (GS2)
Examine the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati to Minerva Mills and its implications for parliamentary sovereignty. (GS2)
Compare India's constitutional amendment procedure with that of the United States, bringing out points of contrast in rigidity. (GS2)

FAQ

Q1. Is the Indian Constitution rigid or flexible? It is both — a mix. Some provisions can be changed by Parliament's ordinary lawmaking (flexible), most require a special majority (rigid), and provisions touching the federal structure additionally need ratification by half the states (most rigid).

Q2. What are the three methods of amending the Indian Constitution? Amendment by simple majority of Parliament, amendment by special majority of Parliament, and amendment by special majority of Parliament together with ratification by not less than half the state legislatures.

Q3. What is the basic structure doctrine? A judicial doctrine, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 cannot be used to alter or destroy the Constitution's basic or essential features.

Q4. Did the 42nd Amendment succeed in removing limits on Parliament's amending power? No. Although the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) added clauses to Article 368 purporting to remove all limitations and exclude judicial review, the Supreme Court struck these down in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

Quick Revision

Article 368: Parliament's power to amend the Constitution by addition, variation, or repeal.
Three amendment routes: simple majority; special majority; special majority + ratification by half the states.
No joint sitting for constitutional amendment Bills.
Presidential assent to a passed amendment Bill made obligatory after the 24th Amendment.
Basic structure doctrine: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — certain features unamendable.
Minerva Mills (1980): struck down unlimited amending power inserted by the 42nd Amendment.
Waman Rao (1980): basic structure doctrine applies from 24 April 1973 onward.
Kihoto Hollohon (1993): Tenth Schedule Paragraph 7 struck down for want of state ratification.

Sources

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.

Rigidity and Flexibility of the Constitution

At a glance

Timeline