Illustrate with examples that our Constitution is not purely rigid and not purely flexible.

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. 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 amendments come under article 368. A flexible constitution is one that can be amended in the same manner as the ordinary laws are made(Means these provisions can be amended by simple majority), like British Constitution. These amendments do not come under article 368. For Example: Admission or establishment of new states, abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in states, citizenship, quorum in parliaments,second schedule and many more. Article 368 provides for two types of amendments: (a) Some provisions can be amended by a special majority of the parliament, i.e., a two third majority of the members of each house present and voting, and a majority (more than 50%), of the total membership of each house. For Example: Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, etc. (b) Some other provisions can be amended by a special majority of the parliament and with the ratification by half of the total states. For Example: Election of President and its manner, extent of the executive power of union and states, supreme court and high courts, seventh schedule, representation of states in parliament (Rajya Sabha) etc.