What would you say about each of these statements?
(a) The constitution is live any other law. If simply tells us what are the rules and regulations governing the government.
(b) The constitution is the expression of the will of the people, so there must be a provision to change the constitution after every ten or fifteen years.
(c) The constitution is a statement of the philosophy of the country. It can never be changed.
(d) The constitution is a sacred document. Therefore any talk of changing it is against democracy.
(a) The Constitution is an instrument that societies create for themselves. All other laws of the society have to conform to the tenets of the constitution. Hence the constitution is not like any other law. The constitution is fundamental to oil other laws.
(b) There not should be a provision for the change of constitution every ten or fifteen years. It won't do any good to the society. The so called banana republics are examples of this.
(c) No; a constitution must be rigid but at the same time it should be flexible enough to accomodate the changing needs and aspiration of the society.
(d) A constitution is a sacred document. But at the same time to meet the challanges of democracy, its provisions must be suitably changed. The changes in the constitution to meet the changing situations in the society are not against the spirit of the democracy.
Which two factors have made India's constitution a living document rather than a closed and static rulebook?
What is the significance of the ‘Special Majority’ required for amending the certain articles of the constitution?
What is meant by the term Equality as given in the Preamble of the Constitution?
Why is the 42nd amendment called a ‘mini Constitution’?
