Despite these defects it cannot be denied that the process
has proved to be simple and easy and has succeeded in meeting the changed needs
and conditions. The procedure is not so flexible as to allow the ruling parties
to change it according to their whims. Nor is it so rigid as to be incapable of
incapable of adopting itself to the changing needs. It, as rightly said by K C
Wherare, ‘strikes a good balance between flexibility and rigidity ‘⁵.
In this
context, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said in the Constituent Assembly, ‘while we
want this Constitution to be as solid and permanent as we can make it, there is
no permanence in a Constitution. There should be certain flexibility. If you
make any Constitution rigid and permanent, you stop the nation’s growth, the
growth of a living vital, organic people’⁶.
Similarly, Dr B R Ambedkar observed in the Constituent
Assembly that, ‘The Assembly has not only refrained from putting a seal of
finality and infallibility upon this Constitution by denying the people the
right to amend the Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of the
Constitution subject to the fulfillment of extraordinary terms and conditions
as in America or Australia, but has provided for a facile procedure for
amending the Constitution’⁷.
K C Wheare has admired the variety of amendment procedures
contained in the Constitution of India. He said, ‘this variety in the amending
process is wise but rarely found’. According to Granville Austin, ‘the amending
process has proved itself one of the most ably conceived aspects of the
Constitution. Although it appears complicated, it is merely diverse’⁸.
No comments:
Post a Comment