Constitution is a living document :-

• Notwithstanding the sterling role played by the drafting committee and Babasaheb Ambedkar, the constitution as it exists today is a product of interactions between three elements: the text, the courts and above all, ‘the people’.
• Even at the time it was framed, the text was not a closed document. There were at least four elements that informed the making of the constitution :-
  • Existing administrative provisions such as those embodied in the Government of India Act of 1935
  • Internationally accepted constitutional principles
  • The ideals of the freedom struggle, including universal adult suffrage
  • The events that were taking place in a country slowly emerging out of World War II, famine and above all, Partition.
• This document keeps responding to the situations and circumstances arising from time to time. Even after so many changes in the society, the Constitution continues to work effectively because of this ability to be dynamic, to be open to interpretations and the ability to respond to the changing situation. This is a hallmark of a democratic constitution.
• Indian Constitution can be changed according to the requirement and the needs of the present society and its future, it is not a constant and static document rather it is fluid and it can be changed by the process of amendment
• The Constitution is open to interpretation by the Supreme Court after understanding the society and the basic foundational values of the constitution.

There is a need to review the constitution :-

• It is the constitution that directly determines what kind of government a nation has, and thereby indirectly the economic policies.
  • India’s Constitution has the dubious distinction of being the largest in the world and consequently unreadable, and largely unread. It gives the government enormous powers to intervene in the economy, to enact laws that discriminate among citizens based on attributes such as religion and caste, restricts freedom of speech, and limits the right to property.
  • In short, it allows deliberate political and economic exploitation.
  • Undue government interference in the economy politicizes the economy, which in turn leads to the corruption of politics. By contrast, the US Constitution is short, guarantees the freedom of speech, protects property rights, prohibits discrimination among citizens, and limits the power of the government.
• The Indian Constitution places the government as the master and people as its servants as can be expected of an essentially colonial government.
  • Like the British government before it, post-1947 Indian governments took on the role of the master and imposed limits on the economic and civic freedoms of Indians.
  • The Constitution’s colonial origins give the government near omnipotent powers that are not consistent with a free society. It allows the government to interfere and restrict economic and civic freedoms.
• India needs a new constitution that is consistent with a nation of free individuals living in a complex, modern, large economy.
  • This modern constitution has to be one that guarantees economic freedom to the individual, prohibits the government from making any laws that discriminate among citizens, guarantees freedom of speech and the press, prohibits the government from entering into businesses that are properly the domain of the private sector, and so on.
  • In other words, India needs a constitution that protects the comprehensive freedom of the individual: economic, social and political
  • India needs a new Constitution that constrains governmental power and restricts it to the proper role of the government in a free society, namely to protect life, liberty and property of the citizens.
  • The new Constitution must prohibit discrimination and must guarantee that all laws follow a generality norm that apply equally to all regardless of sex, religion, group affiliation or origin.
• Nothing in the universe is constant except change, so it is applicable to constitution as well.
• There is no problem in making amendments, in case the majority cast vote in favour of the change.
• Constitution is created for the benefit of its citizens, which should evolve with the changing atmosphere.
• In the era of globalization, unless the constitution is amended, many of the concerns will emerge which happen against the law. We should not create provision for the loopholes in law and order in the country.
• Constitution has already undergone many amendments for good, so it can follow the same theme to catch up with the pace of the world.

There is no need for review:-

• Constitution has been designed after taking into account the upcoming variations and circumstantial evolution, so that holds pretty well for all times.
• Constitution has everything included in it and has nothing wrong to be amended.
• Circumstances will keep changing; constitution cannot follow its trail. Rules and regulations need to be fixed for a proper Law and Order status in the country.
• Once amended, the constitution will lose its form and origin. The respect and fight for our rights will eventually lose their value.
• Constitution for a country is like foundation for a building. Making amendments every now and then will weaken the foundation of the country.

Conclusion:-

• The new Constitution must be readable and be read by all. Therefore it must be in plain language and not in legalese. To be precise, the Constitution should be presented in a way to guard its citizens in every possible way.
• The amendments are welcome if they are carrying some good value attached to it. But the amendments so made should not abolish its originality in its design and implementation.