I have my own reservations about the constitution and the amendments to it.The constitution was framed by a constitutent assembly under the aegis of the British empire.The constitution was written with the preamble"We the people of india give to ourselves the socialist republic " The whole document was given the go ahead and accepted by the ?parliament. In fact it should have been ratified by the people of India.since it was not done it cannot be recognized as a sacrosanct document accepted by the people of india.But then whenever the government/politicians wanted they amended the clauses.
My whole contention is that the constitution is not a legitimate document and hence the amendment to it cannot be legitimate and even the organs parliament judiciary police Ec etc etc are not legitimate.Many Indian citizens did not know this nor do they care about. So the argument that parliament has the power to pass any law is hollow but this cannot be challenged in a court of law,because the court again is illegitimate.
Now there are lots of examples of the governments putting their constitutions for a public referendums and only when people approve it this bercomes legitimate.Recent one is Iraq. Are w3e worse than iraq in playing democracy?Yes for fifty nine years Indians were subservient to a document unknowingly for which they never gaev their approval.