Explanation:

Both the statements are correct.

As regards to Indian Constitution, it strikes a balance between the rigidity and flexibility. The Constitution can be amended in three ways such as:
• The Parliament can alter or modify many of the laws of the Constitution by a simple majority as is required for ordinary legislations. For instance the Parliament can deal with the abolition or creation of Legislative Councils (Article 169). Further, the Parliament can change the name of boundaries, areas etc. of States through simple majority; and these changes don’t even need to done via a Constitutional Amendment Bill. These are examples of most flexible provisions of the constitution.
• Parliament can amend other major parts of the Constitution with special majority (a majority of not less than 2/3 of the members of each House present and majority of them voting) as mentioned in Article 368. This process can be semi-rigid and examples include those amendments needed for inclusion / exclusion of fundamental special right, special provisions for SC/ST, special provisions for some regions etc.
• The amendments to certain features affecting the federal structure of Indian State requires special majority with ratification by half of the States. Provisions related to election to the President and its manner; extent of the executive power of the Union and the states; Supreme Court and high courts etc. fall under this. These are examples of a rigid constitution.
Also, the Parliament is free to amend any part of the Indian Constitution, but the judiciary through the Basic Structure doctrine ensures that this amendment is not arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental values of the Constitution.