DAW 26th November 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

DAW 26th November 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

Question

Do frequent constitutional amendments strengthen or weaken the idea of a living Constitution? Give a reasoned answer. (250 Words, 15 Marks). 

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:  

  • Start by noting that India’s Constitution is a unique blend of rigidity and flexibility, enabling it to function as a living, evolving document. 

  • Introduce the debate: Do frequent amendments promote dynamism or erode stability? 

Body: 

  • Strengthen a Living Constitution 

  • Show how amendments reflect social change (RTE, EWS, Women’s reservation). 

  • Highlight expansion/correction of rights (privacy, 44th Amendment). 

  • Mention governance/economic modernisation (GST). 

  • Stress democratic responsiveness (73rd–74th Amendments). 

  • Link flexibility with constitutional safeguards (Basic Structure as a limit). 

  • May Weaken Stability 

  • Cite politicised amendments (38th, 39th, 42nd during Emergency). 

  • Mention institutional instability (frequent anti-defection changes, PRIs). 

  • Highlight risks to minority rights (25th, 42nd, 97th). 

  • Note erosion of deliberation (fast-tracked 39th, 124th, 42nd). 

Conclusion: 

  • State that flexibility + basic structure review ensures the Constitution remains dynamic yet stable. 

  • End with: India’s Constitution lives, adapts and endures, but must not be manipulated. 

               Introduction: 

  • The Indian Constitution is a balanced blend of rigidity and flexibility, designed as a living document that adapts to evolving societal needs. Article 368 provides an amendment framework that allows change without eroding foundational values. As noted by the Supreme Court and former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, constitutional meaning must evolve with shifting social and political realities. 

  • In this context, the key question is whether frequent amendments enhance this dynamic character or undermine the Constitution’s stability and core principles. 

 Body: 

How Frequent Amendments Strengthen a Living Constitution: 

  • Enable responsiveness to social change: 

  • Amendments allow the Constitution to reflect contemporary values, e.g., 

  • 86th Amendment (Right to Education) 

  • 103rd Amendment (EWS reservation) 

  • 106th Amendment (Women’s reservation) 

These demonstrate constitutional adaptability to new social realities. 

  • Harmonise law with evolving rights: 

  • A living Constitution expands rights through both interpretation and amendment. 

  • Examples: 

  • Puttaswamy (2017) → Right to privacy 

  • 44th Amendment → Corrected misuse of Emergency provisions 

  • Facilitate economic and governance reforms: 

  • 101st Amendment (GST) modernised the tax system for a unified market. 

  • Such reforms would be impossible without a flexible amendment system. 

  • Preserve democratic responsiveness: 

  • Elected representatives can revise the Constitution to reflect current popular will- keeping the Constitution relevant for future generations. 

  • 73rd–74th Amendments (1992–93)- Introduced Panchayati Raj and urban local bodies to reflect public demand for decentralisation. 

  • Align with India’s hybrid structure: 

  • India’s Constitution is neither rigid nor too flexible. Article 368 allows change while protecting the basic structure, ensuring amendments strengthen, not dilute, core values. 

 How Frequent Amendments May Weaken a Living Constitution: 

  • Risk of Politicisation: 

  • 38th, 39th & 42nd Amendments (1975–76): Passed during the Emergency to strengthen executive power and weaken judicial review. 

  • 39th Amendment placed PM’s election beyond judicial scrutiny. 

  • 42nd Amendment tried to make Parliament supreme and curtail courts. 

  • Dilution of Constitutional Stability: 

  • 91st Amendment (2003) – Anti-defection changes:  

  • Introduced to curb defections, but frequent changes in anti-defection rules created confusion and institutional uncertainty on legislative freedoms. 

  • Repeated amendments to Panchayati Raj-related provisions (73rd + multiple state-level amendments) 

  • Resulted in inconsistent and unstable local governance structures across states. 

  • Threat to Minority Rights: 

  • 25th Amendment (1971) – Curtailing right to property. 

  • Reduced judicial protection for minorities in land acquisition, seen as weakening individual rights. 

  • 42nd Amendment – Restricting judicial review 

  • Threatened constitutional safeguards for minorities by attempting to limit courts’ ability to strike down discriminatory laws. 

  • 97th Amendment (2011) – Co-operative societies 

  • Though struck down partly, critics argued it imposed uniform rules on states without adequate safeguards for smaller communities/tribal areas. 

  • Undermining Deliberation: 

  • 42nd Amendment (1976) 

  • Passed with extremely limited debate (barely a few hours). 

  • Attempted sweeping changes- Preamble, DPSPs, Fundamental Duties, Centre–State relations. 

  • 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill (EWS Reservation, 2019) 

  • Cleared by both Houses within 48 hours, raising questions about depth of deliberation on a major structural change. 

  • 39th Amendment (1975) 

  • Rushed through Parliament late at night to protect the PM from judicial scrutiny- clear bypassing of deliberative process. 

Balanced Perspective: 

  • The basic structure doctrine acts as a constitutional guardrail. It ensures: 

  • Flexibility → through amendments, 

  • stability → through judicial review. 

  • Thus, even if amendments are frequent, they cannot undermine democracy, secularism, federalism, rule of law- India’s “north star” as the CJI describes. 

  Conclusion: 

  • Frequent constitutional amendments do not inherently weaken the idea of a living Constitution. Instead, they strengthen it when they expand rights, deepen democracy, correct historical wrongs, and respond to emerging societal needs. 

  • However, when used excessively or politically, amendments can threaten stability and core values.  Ultimately, the balance lies in a flexible amendment process checked by the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution remains dynamic yet anchored- alive, relevant, and enduring.