Constitutional Amendments and Basic Structure
The Indian Constitution is remarkable for its distinctive blend of content and spirit. Although it incorporates elements from constitutions worldwide, it boasts several unique features that set it apart from others.
Many of its original provisions, as framed in 1949, have evolved substantially through key amendments, including the 7th, 42nd, 44th, 73rd, 74th, 97th, and 101st. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976—famously called the 'Mini-Constitution'—stands out for its extensive revisions across multiple parts of the document. Yet, the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) imposed a vital safeguard: Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot alter the Constitution's 'basic structure'.
Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution, in its present form, embodies a set of distinctive salient features that define its character and enduring relevance. These include:
The Lengthiest Written Constitution in the World
Constitutions around the globe fall into two broad categories: written ones, such as the American Constitution, which are codified in a single document, and unwritten ones, like the British Constitution, shaped by statutes, conventions, and judicial precedents. Among written constitutions, India's stands unparalleled as the longest and most comprehensive. This elaborate document not only lays down the foundational principles of governance but also delves into intricate administrative details, incorporating provisions that other democracies typically handle through ordinary laws or established conventions.
When adopted in 1949, the Indian Constitution comprised a Preamble, 395 Articles grouped into 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules. By 2019, through over 100 amendments since 1951, it had expanded significantly to include a Preamble, nearly 470 Articles across 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules. These changes deleted around 20 Articles and one entire Part (Part VII), while adding about 95 Articles, four new Parts (IVA, IXA, IXB, and XIVA), and four Schedules (9 through 12). No other national constitution matches this scale of Articles and Schedules, reflecting India's unique approach to constitutional drafting.
Several factors explain this "elephantine" size. India's vast geography and diverse population demanded provisions tailored to regional variations. Historically, the bulky Government of India Act, 1935, served as a major blueprint, infusing the Constitution with its detailed framework. Unlike federal systems with separate central and state constitutions, India adopted a single document governing both levels of government. Finally, the Constituent Assembly's dominance by legal luminaries ensured meticulous elaboration, embedding even routine administrative matters directly into the text for clarity and permanence.
Impact of Government of India Act 1935
The Indian Constitution is a masterful synthesis, drawing inspiration from constitutions around the world as well as the Government of India Act, 1935. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the document, proudly described this process as "ransacking all the known Constitutions of the World."
At its core, the Constitution's structural framework owes much to the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided the blueprint for key institutions and mechanisms. Its philosophical foundation shines through in the Fundamental Rights, borrowed from the American Constitution, and the Directive Principles of State Policy, inspired by Ireland. The political architecture—embodying the principle of cabinet government and the intricate balance between the executive and legislature—mirrors the British model.
Beyond these, provisions have been adapted from a diverse array of sources, including Canada, Australia, Germany, the erstwhile USSR (now Russia), France, South Africa, and Japan. Yet, the Government of India Act, 1935, stands as the most profound influence, serving as the primary material source. It supplied the federal scheme, the judiciary's structure, governors' roles, emergency powers, public service commissions, and numerous administrative details. Remarkably, more than half of the Constitution's provisions are either identical to or closely resemble those in the 1935 Act.
3. Blend of Rigidity and Flexibility
Constitutions worldwide are often classified as either rigid or flexible based on their amendment processes. A rigid constitution, such as that of the United States, demands a special, more stringent procedure for any changes—typically involving supermajorities or state approvals. In contrast, a flexible constitution, like Britain's unwritten one, can be modified through the same routine methods used for passing ordinary legislation, allowing for swift adaptations to evolving needs.
The Constitution of India strikes a unique balance, embodying neither extreme but rather a thoughtful synthesis of rigidity and flexibility. This hybrid approach is enshrined in Article 368, which outlines two primary amendment pathways. First, certain provisions require only a special majority in Parliament: a two-thirds vote of members present and voting in each House, coupled with a simple majority of the total membership of each House. Second, more fundamental provisions—those touching on the federal structure, such as the division of powers between the Union and states—demand this same special parliamentary majority, plus ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Yet, the Constitution's flexibility shines through in another key feature: several provisions can be amended via a simple majority in Parliament, following the standard legislative process. These changes, which include matters like citizenship rules or the creation of new states, fall outside the purview of Article 368 altogether. This layered mechanism ensures the document remains stable against hasty alterations while permitting practical adjustments, making India's Constitution a model of pragmatic federalism.
4. Federal System with Unitary Bias
The Constitution of India lays the foundation for a federal system of government, incorporating the classic hallmarks of federalism: dual levels of government, a clear division of powers between the center and states, a written constitution that reigns supreme, a rigid amendment process, an independent judiciary, and bicameral legislatures at both levels. These elements create a structured partnership between the Union and the states, ensuring balanced governance across a diverse nation.
Yet, this federal framework carries a pronounced unitary bias, evident in several centralizing features. A powerful central authority dominates through a single constitution for the entire country, uniform citizenship, a flexible amendment process that favors the center, an integrated judicial system, the Centre's power to appoint state governors, the All-India Services that bind administrators across levels, and sweeping emergency provisions that allow the Union to override state autonomy when needed. These provisions tilt the balance toward national unity over state independence.
Significantly, the Constitution avoids the term "federation" altogether. Instead, Article 1 declares India a "Union of States," underscoring two key realities: the federation did not emerge from a voluntary compact among sovereign states, and no state can secede. This deliberate phrasing reflects the framers' vision of an indissoluble union. Scholars have captured this hybrid nature in vivid terms—K.C. Wheare called it "quasi-federal," Morris Jones termed it "bargaining federalism," Granville Austin described it as "co-operative federalism," and Ivor Jennings saw it as a "federation with a centralising tendency." In essence, India’s system is federal in form but unitary in spirit, prioritizing national integrity amid diversity.
5. Parliamentary Form of Government
India's Constitution deliberately embraces the British parliamentary system of government over the American presidential system. At its core, this choice reflects a commitment to close cooperation and coordination between the legislature and executive, in stark contrast to the presidential model's strict doctrine of separation of powers, where the two branches operate independently.
Often termed the Westminster model—after Britain's historic seat of power—this system is also known as responsible government or cabinet government. Crucially, the Constitution extends it not just to the central level but to the states as well, ensuring a uniform framework across the nation.
Several defining features distinguish India's parliamentary setup. It features a nominal executive, embodied by the President or Governor, who holds ceremonial authority, alongside a real executive comprising the Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, or Chief Minister and their team, who wield actual power. Governance hinges on majority party rule, where the executive emerges from and answers to the dominant party or coalition in the lower house. This underscores the principle of collective responsibility, binding the entire Council of Ministers to the legislature—meaning the government must resign if it loses majority support on key issues. Ministers must be members of the legislature, either immediately or within six months of appointment, fostering direct accountability. The Prime Minister or Chief Minister provides pivotal leadership, steering both the executive and legislative agendas. Finally, the lower house—Lok Sabha at the center or the state Legislative Assembly—can be dissolved, paving the way for fresh elections when the government falls.
While India's system draws heavily from Britain, key differences set it apart. Unlike the sovereign British Parliament, which can enact any law, the Indian Parliament operates within constitutional limits. Moreover, India is a republic with an elected head of state, whereas Britain retains a hereditary monarch.
In both nations, the Prime Minister's role has evolved into something dominant, leading political scientists to describe modern parliamentary systems as Prime Ministerial government, where the leader's influence often overshadows the cabinet collective.
Synthesis of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, rooted in the British parliamentary tradition, vests ultimate legislative authority in Parliament, while judicial supremacy, emblematic of the American system, empowers the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as the final arbiter. India's constitutional framework, drawing from both models, strikes a deliberate balance between these principles, adapting them to its unique parliamentary democracy.
Unlike the British system, where Parliament reigns supreme without a written constitution to constrain it, India's Supreme Court wields a robust power of judicial review. Yet this power is more circumscribed than its American counterpart. A key distinction lies in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty through "procedure established by law"—a procedural safeguard—rather than the broader "due process of law" enshrined in the U.S. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The latter allows courts to scrutinize the substantive fairness of laws, enabling wider invalidation of legislation deemed unjust.
Through this design, the framers of the Indian Constitution crafted a harmonious synthesis. The Supreme Court can strike down parliamentary enactments that violate the Constitution, upholding the rule of law. At the same time, Parliament retains the constituent power to amend much of the Constitution, ensuring that elected representatives can respond to evolving societal needs. This equilibrium prevents judicial overreach while safeguarding constitutional supremacy, embodying India's pragmatic blend of democratic accountability and judicial guardianship.
7. Integrated and Independent Judiciary
The Indian Constitution crafts a judicial framework that is both integrated and fiercely independent, ensuring uniform justice across the nation while safeguarding it from external pressures. At the apex sits the Supreme Court, overseeing a unified hierarchy that includes High Courts in each state and a tier of subordinate courts beneath them—such as district courts and lower judicial bodies. This single, seamless system administers both central and state laws nationwide, a stark contrast to the United States, where federal courts handle only federal laws and state courts manage state matters.
The Supreme Court serves as the nation's federal court, the ultimate appellate authority, the protector of citizens' fundamental rights, and the vigilant guardian of the Constitution itself. To secure its autonomy, the Constitution incorporates robust safeguards: judges enjoy secure tenure and fixed service conditions immune to post-appointment tampering; all court expenses draw directly from the Consolidated Fund of India, bypassing annual parliamentary votes; legislative debates on judges' conduct are strictly prohibited; retired judges are barred from legal practice; the Court holds inherent power to punish contempt against itself; and the judiciary remains firmly separated from the executive. These measures collectively fortify the judiciary's impartiality, enabling it to uphold the rule of law without fear or favor.
8. Fundamental Rights
Part III of the Indian Constitution enshrines six cornerstone Fundamental Rights, safeguarding the liberties of citizens and forming the bedrock of India's democratic framework. These rights encompass the Right to Equality (Articles 14–18), which ensures equal treatment before the law; the Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22), protecting freedoms of speech, assembly, and personal liberty; the Right against Exploitation (Articles 23–24), prohibiting forced labor and child exploitation; the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28), guaranteeing religious practice and tolerance; Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30), preserving minority identities and institutions; and the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32), empowering individuals to seek judicial redress.
These rights advance political democracy by curbing executive overreach and legislative arbitrariness, acting as vital checks on state power. Unlike mere declarations, they are justiciable—meaning courts can enforce them directly. An aggrieved citizen can approach the Supreme Court, which wields extraordinary powers to issue five key writs: habeas corpus to secure release from unlawful detention, mandamus to compel public officials to perform duties, prohibition to prevent lower courts from exceeding jurisdiction, certiorari to quash judicial errors, and quo warranto to challenge unlawful office-holders. This direct access underscores the Constitution's commitment to swift justice.
Yet, these rights are not absolute. The state may impose reasonable restrictions to balance individual freedoms with public order, morality, or national security. Nor are they immutable: Parliament can amend or even curtail them through a valid Constitutional Amendment Act. During a National Emergency, most can be suspended, though Articles 20 (protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) remain inviolable, ensuring a minimal safeguard even in crisis.
9. Directive Principles of State Policy
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described the Directive Principles of State Policy as a "novel feature" of the Indian Constitution, setting them apart as a unique instrument for guiding governance. Enshrined in Part IV, these principles fall into three broad categories: socialistic, which emphasize economic equity; Gandhian, rooted in rural upliftment and decentralized development; and liberal-intellectual, focusing on individual freedoms and justice.
At their core, the Directive Principles aim to foster social and economic democracy, laying the groundwork for a true welfare state in India. Unlike Fundamental Rights, however, they are non-justiciable—meaning courts cannot enforce them through legal action if violated. The Constitution nonetheless underscores their importance, declaring them "fundamental in the governance of the country" and imposing on the state a clear duty to weave them into lawmaking. This creates a moral imperative for authorities, with their true enforcement power deriving from political sanction, particularly public opinion.
This delicate interplay came into sharp focus in the Minerva Mills case (1980), where the Supreme Court affirmed that the Indian Constitution rests on the "bedrock of the balance" between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, ensuring neither overshadows the other in pursuit of a just society.
10. Fundamental Duties
The original Constitution of India made no provision for Fundamental Duties, emphasizing citizens' rights while leaving their corresponding obligations unarticulated. This gap was addressed during the Internal Emergency (1975-77) through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which incorporated these duties on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. Later, the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 expanded the list by adding one more duty.
These eleven duties are enshrined in Part IV-A of the Constitution, comprising a single Article 51A. They urge citizens to respect the Constitution, the national flag, and the national anthem; to safeguard the country's sovereignty, unity, and integrity; to foster harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood transcending regional, linguistic, and sectional diversities; to preserve India's rich composite cultural heritage; and to uphold other vital responsibilities toward the nation.
Fundamentally, these duties serve as a constant reminder that rights come with reciprocal obligations. While citizens enjoy their Fundamental Rights, they must remain mindful of their duties to the nation, society, and fellow citizens. Like the Directive Principles of State Policy, however, Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced through courts but guide moral and civic conduct.
11. A Secular State
India's Constitution establishes a secular state, firmly rejecting any official state religion. This commitment is evident across its foundational provisions, which promote equality, religious freedom, and mutual respect among diverse faiths.
A landmark affirmation came through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which explicitly added the word "secular" to the Preamble. This declaration underscores the state's pledge to secure liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship for all citizens. Reinforcing this principle, Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to every person, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Public employment opportunities are equally accessible to all under Article 16, free from religious bias. Article 25 further entrenches freedom of conscience, allowing individuals to profess, practice, and propagate their religion freely, subject to public order, morality, and health. Religious communities enjoy autonomy through Article 26, which empowers every denomination to manage its own affairs. The state maintains neutrality by barring compulsory taxes for promoting any religion (Article 27) and prohibiting religious instruction in state-funded educational institutions (Article 28).
Cultural and minority protections add depth to this framework. Article 29 safeguards any citizen group's right to preserve its distinct language, script, or culture, while Article 30 grants minorities the freedom to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Looking ahead, Article 44 directs the state to endeavor toward a Uniform Civil Code, harmonizing personal laws across communities.
Unlike the Western model of secularism—which demands strict separation between church and state—India embraces a positive approach suited to its multireligious society. Here, the state does not shun religion but extends equal respect and protection to all faiths.
The Constitution also ended the colonial-era practice of communal representation, eliminating reserved legislative seats based on religion. Instead, it introduced temporary reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to ensure their adequate political voice.
12. Universal Adult Franchise
The Indian Constitution establishes universal adult franchise as the cornerstone of elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. Under this principle, every citizen aged 18 or above enjoys the right to vote, free from any discrimination based on caste, race, religion, sex, literacy, wealth, or other factors. This provision marked a significant evolution when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 through the 61st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1988, broadening participation in the democratic process.
The framers of the Constitution took a bold and visionary step by introducing universal adult franchise in a nation as vast and diverse as India. At the time, the country grappled with a massive population, widespread poverty, deep social inequalities, and staggering levels of illiteracy—challenges that made such an inclusive system a remarkable experiment in governance.
This mechanism strengthens democracy by making it truly representative and broad-based. It elevates the dignity and status of ordinary citizens, reinforces the constitutional commitment to equality, empowers minorities to safeguard their interests, and ignites fresh opportunities for the upliftment of marginalized communities.
13. Single Citizenship
India's Constitution establishes a federal system with a dual structure of governance—encompassing both the Union (Centre) and the states—yet it uniquely provides for single citizenship, meaning citizenship of India alone, without separate state-level citizenships. This stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where individuals hold dual citizenship: they are citizens of the United States as well as of the specific state in which they reside. As a result, Americans owe allegiance to both levels of government and enjoy distinct sets of rights—one from the federal authority and another from their state.
In India, this unified approach ensures that every citizen, regardless of their birthplace or place of residence, possesses identical political and civil rights across the entire country. There is no discrimination based on state boundaries; a person from Kerala enjoys the same privileges in Punjab as a local resident does. This design fosters national integration by promoting equality and mobility.
Paradoxically, despite these constitutional safeguards for uniform citizenship and rights, India continues to grapple with deep-seated divisions, including communal riots, class conflicts, caste violence, linguistic tensions, and ethnic disputes. These persistent challenges underscore that the vision of the Constitution's framers—to forge a truly united and integrated nation—remains an ongoing aspiration rather than a fully realized reality.
Independent Bodies in the Indian Constitution
Beyond establishing the core legislative, executive, and judicial organs of government at both central and state levels, the Indian Constitution creates several independent bodies that serve as vital bulwarks of democracy. These institutions safeguard key democratic processes, ensuring accountability, fairness, and meritocracy in governance.
The Election Commission of India stands as the cornerstone of electoral integrity, conducting free and fair elections for Parliament, state legislatures, the President, and the Vice-President. Complementing this oversight role is the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (CAG), who audits the accounts of central and state governments. As the guardian of the public purse, the CAG scrutinizes the legality and propriety of government expenditures, providing an essential check on financial accountability.
Recruitment to public services is entrusted to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which organizes examinations for All-India Services and higher central posts while advising the President on disciplinary matters. At the state level, every State Public Service Commission (SPSC) performs analogous functions, handling recruitments for state services and offering guidance to the Governor on disciplinary issues.
To shield these bodies from political interference, the Constitution incorporates robust safeguards, including secure tenure for members, fixed service conditions that cannot be altered to their disadvantage, and funding drawn directly from the Consolidated Fund of India. These measures collectively reinforce their autonomy, upholding the democratic ethos of the Indian polity.
Emergency Provisions
The Indian Constitution equips the President with comprehensive emergency provisions to confront extraordinary crises head-on. These measures are designed to protect the nation's sovereignty, unity, integrity, and security, while upholding its democratic framework and the Constitution itself.
The framers outlined three distinct categories of emergencies. The first is a national emergency under Article 352, declared in response to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The second involves a state emergency, commonly known as President's Rule, triggered by the breakdown of constitutional machinery in any state (Article 356) or a state's refusal to follow directives from the Centre (Article 365). Finally, a financial emergency under Article 360 addresses threats to India's financial stability or credit standing.
In times of emergency, power shifts dramatically: the Central Government assumes near-absolute authority, placing states firmly under its control. This effectively transforms India's federal structure into a unitary one, all without requiring a formal constitutional amendment. Such a seamless transition from federalism in normal times to a centralized system during crises stands as a distinctive hallmark of the Indian Constitution.
16. Three-Tier Government
The Indian Constitution, in its original form, mirrored typical federal systems by establishing a dual polity—a clear division between the Union (Centre) and the states, complete with provisions for their organization and powers. This two-tier structure underwent a transformative change with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992, which introduced a third tier of government: local self-governance. Remarkably, no other constitution in the world incorporates such a dedicated local level at the constitutional level.
The 73rd Amendment Act provided constitutional status to panchayats, the rural local governments, by inserting a new Part IX and Schedule 11 into the Constitution. These additions empowered village-level institutions to handle local affairs more effectively. Complementing this, the 74th Amendment Act extended similar recognition to municipalities, the urban local bodies, through a new Part IX-A and Schedule 12. Together, these reforms decentralized power, fostering grassroots democracy across rural and urban India.
Constitutional Recognition of Co-operatives
The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 marked a pivotal moment for co-operative societies in India by granting them explicit constitutional recognition and safeguards. This landmark legislation introduced three key modifications to the Constitution, elevating the role of co-operatives in the nation's socio-economic fabric.
First, it enshrined the right to form co-operative societies as a fundamental right under Article 19, empowering citizens to organize collectively without undue state interference. Second, it inserted a new Directive Principle of State Policy through Article 43B, obligating the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of co-operative societies. Third, and most substantially, it added Part IXB—titled "The Co-operative Societies"—comprising Articles 243ZH to 243ZT. This dedicated part lays down a comprehensive framework to ensure co-operatives operate democratically, professionally, autonomously, and on sound economic principles.
Under this framework, Parliament holds legislative authority over multi-state co-operative societies, while state legislatures govern all others, fostering a balanced federal approach to their regulation and growth.
Criticisms of the Indian Constitution
Despite its enduring legacy as the bedrock of independent India, the Constitution of India—drafted and adopted by the Constituent Assembly—has drawn pointed criticisms over the decades. These critiques, often voiced by scholars, jurists, and political thinkers, highlight perceived shortcomings in its framing and content, as outlined below.
1. A Borrowed Constitution
Critics have long dismissed the Indian Constitution as lacking originality, labeling it a "borrowed constitution," a "bag of borrowings," a "hotch-potch," or a mere "patchwork" stitched together from foreign documents. This view, however, is both unfair and misguided. The framers did indeed draw inspiration from constitutions worldwide, but they meticulously adapted these elements to suit India's unique social, cultural, and political landscape—while deliberately steering clear of the pitfalls that plagued their originals.
In the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, offered a compelling rebuttal. He challenged the notion of novelty in modern constitutions: after more than a century since the world's first written constitution, and with dozens of nations having followed suit, the core scope and fundamentals of such documents are now universally understood. Inevitably, constitutions share similarities in their essential provisions. True innovation, Ambedkar argued, lies not in reinvention but in thoughtful variations—refinements that address past flaws and tailor the framework to a nation's specific needs. The accusation of blind copying, he concluded, stems from superficial analysis rather than genuine scrutiny.
A Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act?
Critics of the Indian Constitution often pointed out its extensive borrowing from the Government of India Act, 1935, dubbing it a “carbon copy” or merely an “amended version” of that colonial legislation. They argued that the framers had lifted a substantial portion of its provisions almost verbatim. For instance, N. Srinivasan remarked that the Constitution was “both in language and substance a close copy of the Act of 1935.” The eminent British constitutionalist Sir Ivor Jennings echoed this view, noting that the document “derives directly from the Government of India Act of 1935 from which, in fact, many of its provisions are copied almost textually.” Even P.R. Deshmukh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, quipped that the Constitution was “essentially the Government of India Act of 1935 with only adult franchise added.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, addressed this charge head-on during Constituent Assembly debates. He offered no apologies for the borrowings, retorting: “As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, I make no apologies. There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution. What I am sorry about is that the provisions taken from the Government of India Act, 1935, relate mostly to the details of administration.” Ambedkar’s candid response underscored a pragmatic truth: while the Constitution drew on proven administrative machinery from the 1935 Act, it infused those elements with the transformative ideals of sovereignty and democracy.
Accusations of an Un-Indian Constitution
Critics have long labeled the Indian Constitution as "un-Indian" or even "anti-Indian," arguing that it fails to embody the nation's ancient political traditions and cultural spirit. They contend that its predominantly foreign character renders it ill-suited to India's unique social and historical context, predicting it would prove unworkable in practice.
This perspective found voice even within the Constituent Assembly itself. K. Hanumanthaiya, a prominent member, lamented the document's Western influences with a poignant metaphor: "We wanted the music of the veena or sitar, but here we have the music of an English band." He attributed this to the framers' Western-style education. Echoing similar sentiments, Lokanath Misra decried it as a "slavish imitation of the West—much more, a slavish surrender to the West." Lakshminarayan Sahu went further, warning that the Constitution's ideals bore "no manifest relation to the fundamental spirit of India," foreseeing its swift collapse once implemented. These critiques highlighted a deep unease about the Constitution's roots in colonial and global models rather than indigenous heritage.
An Un-Gandhian Constitution
Critics have long argued that India's Constitution strays from the vision of Mahatma Gandhi, the revered Father of the Nation, by failing to embody his core philosophy and ideals. At the heart of Gandhi's thought lay a profound commitment to decentralized governance, with village panchayats—self-reliant local bodies—as the foundational units of society, extending upward to district-level councils. Instead of anchoring the Constitution in this grassroots structure, it adopted a centralized framework, prompting sharp dissent within the Constituent Assembly itself.
K. Hanumanthaiya, a member of the Assembly, captured this sentiment succinctly: "That is exactly the kind of Constitution Mahatma Gandhi did not want and did not envisage." Similarly, T. Prakasam, another Assembly member, pointed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—the chief architect of the Constitution—as the root cause, citing his lack of involvement in the Gandhian movement and perceived antagonism toward its principles. This critique underscores a fundamental tension between Gandhi's ideal of village-centric democracy and the Constitution's emphasis on a strong, unified state.
5. Elephantine Size
Critics of the Indian Constitution often pointed to its sheer bulk and excessive detail, arguing that it included unnecessary provisions. The eminent British constitutionalist Sir Ivor Jennings encapsulated this view, noting that the borrowed elements were not always judiciously chosen and that the document, on the whole, was overly long and intricate.
This sentiment found a colorful echo in the Constituent Assembly itself. H.V. Kamath, a member of the Assembly, drew a witty parallel to the elephant emblem adopted for the body, remarking that it seemed fitting for what would become the world's bulkiest constitution. He cautioned his colleagues: “I am sure the House does not agree that we should make the Constitution an elephantine one.”
6. Paradise of the Lawyers
Critics have long argued that the Indian Constitution is overly legalistic and labyrinthine in its complexity. Its dense legal language and intricate phraseology, they contend, transform it into a document that favors lawyers above all else—a point starkly captured by the eminent constitutional scholar Sir Ivor Jennings, who famously dubbed it a “lawyer’s paradise”.
This sentiment echoed strongly within the Constituent Assembly itself. H.K. Maheswari, a member of the Assembly, warned that the draft Constitution would foster a litigious society, encouraging people to rush to courts rather than embrace truth and non-violence. “The draft tends to make people more litigious, more inclined to go to law courts, less truthful and less likely to follow the methods of truth and non-violence,” he observed. “If I may say so, the draft is really a lawyer’s paradise. It opens up vast avenues of litigation and will give our able and ingenious lawyers plenty of work to do.”
P.R. Deshmukh, another Assembly member, echoed these concerns, lamenting the document’s verbosity. He likened it to the ponderous tomes of a law manual, burdened with unnecessary padding and verbiage. “A document dealing with a constitution hardly uses so much... Perhaps it is difficult for them to compose a document which should be, to my mind, not a law manual but a socio-political document, a vibrating, pulsating and life-giving document,” he remarked. “But, to our misfortune, that was not to be, and we have been burdened with so much of words, words and words which could have been very easily eliminated.”