How does the Indian Constitution compare with other modern constitutions in terms of flexibility and rigidity?

India’s three-track text

• Ordinary legislation can still alter many constitutional arrangements that sit outside Article 368, such as the creation of new States under Articles 2–4, which the text itself says is not an amendment under 368.
• Article 368’s special majority — two-thirds of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership — is the main rigid track for Part III, the amending clause, and most of the charter.
• A third track adds ratification by not less than half the State legislatures for federal provisions (President’s election, Union–State lists, Supreme Court, and related clauses).
• Granville Austin’s description of a constitution that is neither too rigid nor too flexible remains the classroom summary of this design.

Extra rigidity the text did not write in 1950

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980) hold that limited amending power is itself a basic feature; Parliament cannot destroy identity features by expanding Article 368.
• Judicial review of amendments is therefore a rigidity comparable to Germany’s eternity clause in Article 79(3) of the Basic Law, though India’s list of basic features is judicial, not fully enumerated in one article.

Other modern constitutions

• The United Kingdom remains the textbook flexible constitution: Parliament can change constitutional statutes by ordinary majority, with political convention as the real brake.
• The United States is classically rigid: Article V needs two-thirds of both Houses and three-fourths of the States, which is why amendments are rare.
• France’s Fifth Republic offers a choice between a three-fifths Congress vote and a referendum, a political flexibility India does not copy for ordinary amendments.
• Australia and Switzerland put many constitutional changes to the people; India has no mandatory referendum in Article 368.
• Japan’s Article 96 also demands a referendum after Diet supermajority, another popular lock India declined.

Comparative judgement

• India is more rigid than the United Kingdom and more flexible than the United States or Switzerland on the frequency of change — more than a hundred amendments show the special majority is usable.
• It is closer to Germany in having an unamendable identity core, and unlike France and Australia in keeping the people off the amending ballot.
• The comparison is therefore a hybrid: legislative flexibility at the edges, parliamentary rigidity in the middle, federal ratification plus basic structure at the core.