A Comparative Lens on India and Japan’s Constitutional Identities
India and Japan are both democracies with written constitutions, but they represent two very different constitutional journeys — India’s highly amendable and socially transformative Constitution versus Japan’s rigid, pacifist, and unamended post-war Constitution.
Introduction
India and Japan offer a useful comparative case study in constitutional design, amendment culture, and democratic evolution. India has a flexible yet protected Constitution that has been amended more than 100 times to respond to social, political, and economic changes. Japan, on the other hand, has the oldest unamended written Constitution in the world, in force since 1947, reflecting an emphasis on stability, pacifism, and consensus politics. Together, they illustrate two different models of constitutional identity within democratic systems.
Context & Background
India’s Constitution, adopted in 1950, was framed after an extensive deliberation by the Constituent Assembly. It combined features of parliamentary democracy, federalism, fundamental rights, and socio-economic directives. Recognising that society evolves, Article 368 provided a structured mechanism for constitutional amendment. Japan’s post-war Constitution, imposed and negotiated under Allied (mainly US) supervision in 1947, replaced the Meiji Constitution. It introduced parliamentary democracy, popular sovereignty, and most famously, Article 9, renouncing war and prohibiting offensive armed forces. While India’s Constitution has been amended over 100 times, Japan’s has never been formally amended, despite repeated debates over its security provisions.
Key Points
- •India’s Adaptive Amendment Culture: India uses amendments as a tool to advance social justice, deepen democracy, and enable economic reforms.
- •Social Justice Reforms: Amendments are used to empower marginalised communities. 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) restored states’ power to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), strengthening federalism and representation.
- •Democratic Deepening: The 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) gave constitutional status to Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies, institutionalising grassroots democracy and decentralisation.
- •Economic Integration: The 101st Amendment (2016) introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), creating a unified national market and changing Centre–State fiscal relations.
- •Japan’s Post-War Constitution (1947): Japan’s Constitution, promulgated after World War II, shifted power from the Emperor to the people, established parliamentary democracy, and entrenched pacifism in Article 9.
- •Article 9 – Pacifist Identity: Article 9 renounces war as a sovereign right and prohibits maintaining war potential. Although Japan maintains Self-Defense Forces (SDF), this clause symbolises Japan’s post-war identity as a pacifist state.
- •Consensus-Driven Politics: Japan follows a consensus model, where major constitutional changes require intense political agreement and public endorsement through a national referendum, making amendments politically difficult.
- •Rigidity vs Flexibility: India’s Constitution is flexible (with checks like the Basic Structure Doctrine), while Japan’s is rigid in practice, with zero amendments despite changing security and political realities.
- •Different Constitutional Identities: India’s identity is that of a transformative, welfare and social justice-oriented Constitution. Japan’s is of a stability-oriented, pacifist, and continuity-based Constitution.
Amendment Procedure: India vs Japan
| Aspect | Indian Constitution | Japanese Constitution | Bookmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initiation | Amendment Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament. | Amendment must be initiated in both Houses of the National Diet. | |
| Legislative Threshold | Special majority (2/3rd of members present & voting + majority of total membership). Some provisions also require ratification by 1/2 of State Legislatures. | 2/3rd majority in both Houses of the Diet is required to approve an amendment bill. | |
| Referendum | No constitutional requirement of a popular referendum; amendments are complete after Parliamentary (and sometimes State) approval. | Mandatory national referendum; amendment must be approved by a simple majority of voters. | |
| Frequency | Over 106 Constitutional Amendments (as of 2025). | No amendments since 1947; zero formal amendments. | |
| Key Focus Areas of Change | Fundamental Rights (e.g., property), Reservation, Local Self-Government, GST, Co-op Societies, etc. | Debates focus on Article 9 (pacifism and security policy), but no formal amendment yet. |
Similarities in Political Systems of India and Japan
| Feature | India | Japan | Bookmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitution Type | Written Constitution (1950), longest in the world. | Written post-war Constitution (1947), concise but comprehensive. | |
| Form of Government | Parliamentary democracy with President as nominal head and Prime Minister as real head. | Parliamentary democracy with Emperor as ceremonial head and Prime Minister as real head. | |
| Legislature | Bicameral: Lok Sabha (Lower House), Rajya Sabha (Upper House). | Bicameral: House of Representatives (Lower), House of Councillors (Upper). | |
| Money Bills | Rajya Sabha can delay Money Bills but not reject them (Article 109). | House of Councillors can delay budget but House of Representatives has final say (Article 60). | |
| Collective Responsibility | Council of Ministers collectively responsible to Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)). | Cabinet collectively responsible to House of Representatives (Article 66(3)). | |
| Dissolution of Lower House | President can dissolve Lok Sabha (Article 85) on advice of PM/Council. | Emperor dissolves House of Representatives (Article 7) on Cabinet’s advice. |
Related Entities
Impact & Significance
- •India’s Adaptive Constitutionalism: India’s amendment mechanism allows the Constitution to respond to social change, economic reforms, and political developments. This supports a living Constitution model that can adapt while preserving core values.
- •Japan’s Stability and Continuity: Japan’s unamended Constitution reflects political continuity, pacifist identity, and elite consensus. It demonstrates how a rigid Constitution can still function if the political culture is stable and incremental.
- •Learning for India: From Japan, India can draw lessons on broad-based consensus and caution against frequent or politically motivated amendments.
- •Learning for Japan: From India, Japan can see how constitutional amendments can be used to update institutions, strengthen local government, or respond to global changes (e.g., economic integration).
- •Global Relevance: The contrast highlights two valid but different models of constitutional identity—transformative vs preservative—important for comparative constitutional studies in UPSC.
- •Security and Pacifism Dimension: India’s Constitution does not renounce war; it emphasises sovereignty and defence. Japan’s Article 9 makes its constitutional identity uniquely pacifist, shaping its foreign and defence policies.
Challenges & Criticism
- •India – Risk of Over-Amendment: Critics argue that frequent amendments can undermine constitutional stability and allow ruling majorities to alter the constitutional balance for short-term gain.
- •India – Basic Structure Tension: The Basic Structure Doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend, sometimes creating tension between democratic majorities and judicial review.
- •Japan – Democratic Rigidity: Japan’s inability to amend its Constitution, even when there is broad debate on security or rights, is seen by some as democratic stagnation.
- •Japan – Ambiguity in Article 9: The existence of Self-Defense Forces (SDF) despite Article 9’s wording creates interpretative stress and reliance on political understandings rather than formal constitutional clarity.
- •Political Consensus Hurdle: In both countries, high thresholds (2/3 + referendum in Japan; special majority + states in India for some provisions) mean that amendments require strong political and social consensus, which is increasingly hard in polarised environments.
- •Public Awareness: In both democracies, many citizens do not fully understand the implications of amendment debates, making it easy for elites to control the narrative.
Future Outlook
- •India is likely to continue using constitutional amendments to fine-tune federal relations, strengthen local democracy, and reform institutions, while being constrained by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- •Japan may see renewed debate on Article 9 due to changing regional security (China, North Korea), but formal amendment will depend on political consensus and public opinion.
- •Both countries will have to balance constitutional continuity with the need to respond flexibly to new challenges like cyber security, climate change, AI, and demographic shifts.
- •For India, the challenge will be to use amendment powers responsibly, avoiding partisan changes while promoting social justice and good governance.
- •For Japan, the key question is whether maintaining an unamended pacifist Constitution continues to serve its strategic interests in a turbulent Indo-Pacific.
- •In comparative constitutional studies, India–Japan provide a rich case for UPSC: same democratic form, different constitutional identities and amendment cultures.
UPSC Relevance
UPSC
- • GS-2: Comparison of Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries.
- • GS-2: Parliament, federalism, amendment procedure, judicial review.
- • Essay: Constitution as a living document vs rigid charter; peace, security, and constitutionalism.
Sample Questions
Prelims
With reference to the Constitutions of India and Japan, consider the following statements:
1. Both countries have written Constitutions and bicameral legislatures.
2. Constitutional amendments in Japan must be approved by a national referendum.
3. India has never amended its Constitution since its adoption.
4. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution renounces war as a sovereign right.
Answer: Option 1, Option 2, Option 4
Explanation: Statements 1, 2, and 4 are correct. India has amended its Constitution many times, so statement 3 is incorrect.
Mains
Compare and contrast the constitutional amendment processes of India and Japan. How do these processes reflect their respective constitutional identities and political cultures?
Introduction: India and Japan, both parliamentary democracies with written Constitutions, have adopted very different approaches to constitutional change. India’s Constitution is frequently amended, while Japan’s post-war Constitution remains unamended since 1947.
Body:
• Procedure Comparison: Special majority in Indian Parliament versus two-thirds in the Diet plus referendum in Japan.
• Flexibility vs Rigidity: India’s adaptive and transformative Constitution vs Japan’s stable and pacifist charter.
• Political Culture: India’s contested but amendment-accepting political tradition vs Japan’s consensus-driven, status quo-oriented politics.
• Implications: India can respond to social and economic change through amendments; Japan relies more on interpretation and policy rather than formal amendment, especially on Article 9.
Conclusion: India and Japan demonstrate two ends of the spectrum — a ‘living’ Constitution that evolves and a ‘frozen’ Constitution that symbolises continuity. Both models offer lessons on how democracies negotiate change, identity, and stability.