Are Constitutions Static?

It is not unusual for nations to rewrite their constitutions when circumstances, ideas in society, or politics change sharply. The Soviet Union had four constitutions in its 74-year life (1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977); after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the new Russian federation adopted an entirely new constitution in 1993. France went further still: after its 1789 revolution it went through repeated constitutional experiments — the 1793 constitution of the first republic, the second republic in 1848, the third republic's constitution of 1875, the fourth republic in 1946, and finally the fifth republic in 1958 with yet another constitution.

India took a different path. The same Constitution, adopted in 1949 and effective from 26 January 1950, continues to serve as the country's framework of government to this day, without ever being replaced. This does not mean the Constitution never changes — it means it has changed the same document, through amendment, rather than being torn up and rewritten.

A constitution, then, faces one basic tension: at the moment it is drafted, its provisions reflect the problems the society is facing at that time; but it must also serve as a durable framework for a future its makers cannot fully predict. It is not a frozen, unalterable document — it is made by human beings and may need revision and re-examination. Yet it also cannot be treated as ordinary law, changeable on a whim, because it reflects the enduring dreams, aspirations and framework of a society's democratic governance. This dual character raises a hard question: is the Constitution so sacred that nobody can ever change it, or so ordinary that it can be modified just like any other law? …