Question

why is the nature of the indian constitution is seen as a living document

Answer 1

our constitution is 62 years old. the rules and regulations that were framed 62 years ago still seem to be relevant in todays time. the question which arises is that, were our constitution makers so wise that they had foreseen the changes that will take place? or is our constitution so good that it requires no changes.  

Inspite of 62 years being passed, our constitution is still a living document. The reasons are : firstly, that our constitution accepts the required changes which is neede by the society.  secondly, there have been enough flexibility in our interpretations. This means that our judiciary has interpreted our constitution according to changing circumstances. if you remember the keshavannada bharati case. right to property was a fundamental right but it was later changed to accomodate the public interests.   

So, constitution is an instrument that may require changes from time to time. our constitution is not a static document and it can be altered. but at the same  time it is a sacred document. our constitution is above ordinary law. It provides the framework to the government for democratic governance.  that is why it is said that our constitution is a living document.

How to amend the constitution?

a constitution is called 'flexible' if it is open to changes. and it is called rigid if it is resistant to changes. since our constitution nakers were aware of the changes which will come in the course of time, so they included the process of amendment. 

there are 3 processes of amendment:

a. simple majority 

b. special majority (Article 368)

c. special majority alongwith ratification by half of state legislatures (Article368)

let me deal with these in little detail:

a. Simple Majority: 

To bring a change in law or a new law, it requires a simple majority of members present and voting in parliament, that is, of more than 50% . 

if 120 members are present in parliament , then support of 120/2=60+1=61 members is required to pass the law.

these are not constitutional amendments. and these include formation of new states, altering the area of states . 

b.  special majority (Article 368) 

when constitution has to be amended, there is a need of special majority. it is the majority of total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting in the parliament.  both houses must pass the bill in the same manner. 

lok sabha has 545 members ,so it requires support of 545/2 = 273 members to support the bill. and if 300 members were present at the time of voting, then it requires  273 members. 

so the basic thing behind amendment is that it has to take opposition parties into confidence.

c.  special majority + ratification by half of state legislatures(article 368)

In some cases, even special majority by parliament is not sufficient. It requires the assent of half of the state legislatures.  this is when the distribution of powers between state and centre is concerned. So when, federal issues are concerned assent of state is required. And as we have read in chapter federalism that states are not completely at the mercy of centre.  to amend the fundamental rights we require special majority plus ratification by half of state legislatures.  

in other areas also , third method of amendment is required:

a. to amend election of president

b. to amend supreme court and high court powers

and many others. 

in case of constitutional amendment(that is second and third method), all bills go to the president but here the president cannot send it back for reconsideration. and in this case an important principle has been underlined that only elected representatives have the authority to bring about amendment to the constitution. therefore, sovereignty of elected representatives is the basis of amendment procedure