<P> Dr. P.S. Deshmukh believed that the amendment of the Constitution should be made easier as he felt there were contradictory provisions in some places which would be more and more apparent when the provisions were interpreted, and that the whole administration would suffer, if the amendment to the Constitution was not made easy . Brajeshwar Prasad also favoured a flexible Constitution so as to make it survive the test of time . He was of the opinion that rigidity tends to check progressive legislation or gradual innovation . On the other hand, H.V. Kamath favoured ensuring procedural safeguards to avoid the possibility of hasty amendment to the Constitution . </P> <P> "It is said that the provisions contained in the Draft make amendment difficult . It is proposed that the Constitution should be amendable by a simple majority at least for some years . The argument is subtle and ingenious . It is said that this Constituent Assembly is not elected on adult suffrage while the future Parliament will be elected on adult suffrage and yet the former has been given the right to pass the Constitution by a simple majority while the latter has been denied the same right . It is paraded as one of the absurdities of the Draft Constitution . I must repudiate the charge because it is without foundation . To know how simple are the provisions of the Draft Constitution in respect of amending the Constitution one has only to study the provisions for amendment contained in the American and Australian Constitutions . Compared to them those contained in the Draft Constitution will be found to be the simplest . The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or a referendum...It is only for amendments of specific matters--and they are only few--that the ratification of the State Legislatures is required . All other Articles of the Constitution are left to be amended by Parliament . The only limitation is that it shall be done by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the members of each House present and voting and a majority of the total membership of each House . It is difficult to conceive a simpler method of amending the Constitution . </P> <P> What is said to be the absurdity of the amending provisions is founded upon a misconception of the position of the Constituent Assembly and of the future Parliament elected under the Constitution . The Constituent Assembly in making a Constitution has no partisan motive . Beyond securing a good and workable Constitution it has no axe to grind . In considering the Articles of the Constitution it has no eye on getting through a particular measure . The future Parliament if it met as Constituent Assembly, its members will be acting as partisans seeking to carry amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the passing of party measures which they have failed to get through Parliament by reason of some Article of the Constitution which has acted as an obstacle in their way . Parliament will have an axe to grind while the Constituent Assembly has none . That is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the future Parliament . That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected on limited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution by simple majority and why the Parliament though elected on adult suffrage cannot be trusted with the same power to amend it ." </P> <P> The Constitution of India provides for a distinctive amending process when compared to the Constitutions of other nations . It can be described as partly flexible and partly rigid . The Constitution provides for a variety in the amending process . This feature has been commended by Australian academic Sir Kenneth Wheare who felt that uniformity in the amending process imposed "quite unnecessary restrictions" upon the amendment of parts of a Constitution . An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament . The Bill must then be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the members of that House present and voting . There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses . The Bill, passed by the required majority, is then presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill . If the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to article 368, it must be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one - half of the States . Although, there is no prescribed time limit for ratification, it must be completed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent . </P>

Different modes of amendment of the constitution of india