Are constitutions static?

Many countries rewrite their constitutions when times or ideas change. The Soviet Union had four constitutions in 74 years (1918, 1924, 1936, 1977), and after it broke up, the new Russian federation adopted another in 1993. France has had five republics, each with a new constitution (the fifth from 1958).

India is different. The Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into force on 26 January 1950, and the same Constitution still frames our government. Why?

• We inherited a robust Constitution whose basic framework suits the country, and its makers were farsighted.
• But no document can foresee everything. The Constitution accepts the need for changes as society's needs change.
• In practice there has been flexibility of interpretation: both political practice and court rulings have shown maturity.
• These make it a living document, not a closed, frozen rulebook.

Two views of a constitution. It reflects a society's dreams and aspirations, so it seems almost sacred; but it is also an instrument a society makes for governing itself, written by human beings and open to revision. Our makers struck a balance: they placed the Constitution above ordinary law and hoped future generations would respect it, yet knew it might need changes, especially on matters where opinion was divided.

• (For comparison, the US Constitution is over 200 years old and has been amended only 27 times.)

Example (new): a school's rulebook that bans all mobile phones may need a new rule when tablets become part of lessons; the school keeps the rulebook and its purpose, but updates a part of it. A living constitution works the same way.