Understanding Key Principles of Indian Governance
In India, certain principles form the backbone of how the government functions. These principles ensure that the country remains a democracy where the voices of the people are heard, and the government acts responsibly. Let's break down these essential ideas for better understanding.
Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty means that the ultimate power rests with the people. In India, this idea is enshrined in the Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. This signifies that the authority and legitimacy of the government come from the will of the people. Through regular elections, the citizens choose their representatives who make decisions on their behalf, thus maintaining democratic values.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is a vital principle where every individual, including government officials, is subject to the law. This means that laws apply to everyone equally and ensure that no one is above the law. Articles 14 to 18 in the Constitution guarantee the right to equality, which underlines the rule of law. This principle is fundamental in protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring justice is delivered fairly and without bias.
Democratic Government
Democratic government is one that is responsible and accountable to the people. This means that elected officials must respond to the needs and concerns of their constituents. The Constitution provides for a parliamentary system of governance, detailed in Articles 79 to 122, which outlines how the President, the Parliament, and the Judiciary work together. Regular elections and mechanisms for setting accountability ensure that the government remains connected to the public it serves.
Separation of Powers
The separation of powers is the distribution of governmental responsibilities into different branches to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one area. In India, these three branches are the Legislature (responsible for making laws), the Executive (responsible for implementing laws), and the Judiciary (responsible for interpreting laws). This separation is designed to create a system of checks and balances, ensuring that each branch can monitor and limit the actions of the others. Significant provisions regarding this separation can be found in Articles 79 to 122 for the Legislature, Articles 52 to 78 for the Executive, and Articles 124 to 147 for the Judiciary.
Independent Judiciary
An independent judiciary is essential for protecting the rights of individuals and maintaining the rule of law. The judiciary operates independently from the executive and legislative branches, ensuring fair judgment in legal matters. Article 50 of the Constitution emphasizes the separation of the judiciary from the executive. This independence helps safeguard against the abuse of power and guarantees that everyone has the right to a fair trial.
Civilian Control of the Military
Civilian control of the military means that the armed forces are under the authority of elected civilian leaders and not the other way around. This ensures that the military serves the interests of the people. In India, this principle is reflected in the Constitution, where the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are responsible for military decisions. This control prevents military intervention in politics, maintaining the integrity of democratic processes.
Police Governed by Law and Judicial Control
In a democracy, police forces must operate under the law and be accountable to the judicial system. This means that policing should not be based on arbitrary power, but on legal frameworks and guidelines set by the law. The Indian Police Act of 1861 outlines the operation of police forces, but calls for reforms to modernize these practices often emerge in discussions surrounding police accountability and transparency.
Respect for Individual Rights
Lastly, respect for individual rights is a cornerstone of democracy. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights (Articles 12 to 35) to every citizen, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and protection against discrimination. These rights are essential to ensure that everyone can live freely and participate in the democratic process without fear of oppression or discrimination.
In conclusion, these principles—popular sovereignty, rule of law, democratic governance, separation of powers, independent judiciary, civilian control of the military, police governed by law, and respect for individual rights—form the framework that supports India's democratic system. By adhering to these principles, India strives to provide a government that is not only effective but also accountable to its citizens. These guidelines are critical for maintaining justice, equality, and freedom, which are integral to the nation's identity.
Key Features of the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution in the world. Like other constitutions, it can be classified as written (like the one in the United States) or unwritten (like the British Constitution). It is detailed and comprehensive, originally having a Preamble, 395 Articles divided into 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules in 1949. Over the years, it has evolved significantly and now consists of a Preamble, approximately 470 Articles divided into 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules. This growth has come from various amendments; since 1951, around 20 Articles were removed, while 95 new Articles, four new Parts, and four Schedules were added.
The extensive nature of the Indian Constitution can be attributed to several factors, which include the vastness and diversity of the country, historical influences from earlier laws like the Government of India Act of 1935, the need for a single Constitution for both the Central and State Governments, and the substantial involvement of legal experts during its formation. Unlike most modern democratic countries, which leave many governance issues to ordinary laws or political practices, the Indian Constitution encompasses these details within its framework.
One significant change took place in 2019 concerning the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which previously had its own constitution and special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. However, this unique status was abolished with a presidential order, leading to the integration of the region into the broader constitutional structure of India through "The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019." This change established two Union Territories, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, ensuring that all constitutional provisions apply uniformly across the region.
Diverse Sources of Inspiration
India’s Constitution has taken inspiration from various sources around the world. The structural elements are mainly influenced by the Government of India Act of 1935. The philosophical underpinnings, such as Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, draw from the American and Irish constitutions. The political framework incorporates elements from the British Constitution regarding the Cabinet system and the relationship between the legislature and the executive. Additionally, it also includes features from the constitutions of other nations, such as Canada, Australia, and Germany, among others.
Through this collection of ideas, the Constitution seeks to provide a well-rounded governance model.
Rigidity and Flexibility
The Indian Constitution has a blend of rigidity and flexibility. Article 368 allows for amendments through two methods: some provisions may be amended by a special majority of Parliament, while others require ratification by at least half the states in the country. Moreover, certain provisions can be modified with just a simple majority in Parliament, indicating a flexible approach when needed while maintaining structure.
Federal Structure with Unitary Characteristics
The Constitution establishes a federal structure, which means it divides powers between the Central and State governments. Typical features include two levels of government, a written Constitution, and an independent judiciary. However, it also contains many unitary elements, such as a strong central government, single citizenship, and all-India services. Article 1 describes India as a "Union of States," meaning it is not formed by an agreement among the states, and no state has the right to secede. This unique aspect has led to various interpretations of the Constitution, describing it in terms such as "quasi-federal" or "co-operative federalism."
Parliamentary Form of Government
India follows a parliamentary system of government, derived from the British model. This structure emphasizes teamwork between the legislative and executive branches. The features include both a nominal head of state (the President) and a real executive led by the Prime Minister. Key characteristics include collective responsibility, membership of ministers in the legislature, and the ability of the legislature to dissolve itself.
While the Indian system aligns with the British format, it differs in several ways, such as India's elected head of state compared to Britain's monarchy. Furthermore, the Indian Parliament's powers are not entirely sovereign, as the judiciary has a significant role in reviewing laws.
Integrated and Independent Judiciary
The Constitution provides for a judicial system that is both integrated and independent. The Supreme Court, at the top, oversees the enforcement of laws at both central and state levels, contrasting with systems like that of the USA, which has separate levels of judiciary. The Supreme Court ensures the protection of citizens' fundamental rights and acts as a guardian of the Constitution while maintaining its independence through various protections for judges.
Fundamental Rights
Part III of the Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to all citizens, including the Right to Equality, Freedom, and against Exploitation, among others. Initially, there were seven rights, but the Right to Property was later redefined from a fundamental right to a legal right. These rights are vital for promoting democracy and provide a framework for citizens to seek justice through the courts against violations.
While these rights are significant, they are not absolute and may be limited under certain circumstances, particularly during national emergencies, as stipulated in Articles 20 and 21.
Directive Principles of State Policy
Part IV of the Constitution outlines the Directive Principles of State Policy, which, according to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, represent a novel aspect of governance. These principles are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by courts. However, they play a crucial role in guiding the state in policy-making towards social and economic welfare.
The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential to India's constitutional firmament, as noted in landmark cases by the Supreme Court.
Fundamental Duties
Originally absent from the Constitution, Fundamental Duties were included through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Part IVA outlines essential responsibilities citizens owe to their nation, which include respecting the Constitution and promoting national unity. Though they cannot be enforced by law, they serve as a moral reminder to citizens about their duties.
Secularism
The Indian Constitution enshrines secularism, ensuring no state religion is enforced, as affirmed in the Preamble and various Articles. It maintains the idea of equal respect for all religions, allowing citizens freedom of belief and worship. This positive form of secularism contrasts with the Western notion, which often emphasizes a complete separation of religion and state.
Universal Adult Franchise
The Constitution endorses universal adult franchise, allowing every citizen aged 18 or over to vote without discrimination. This inclusive approach to democracy empowers citizens and affirms the basic tenets of equality and self-respect. The voting age was lowered to 18 through an amendment in 1989.
Single Citizenship
While India maintains a federal structure, it provides for only single citizenship. All Indians, regardless of where they are born or live, enjoy the same rights. This was intended to foster unity across the diverse social landscape, even as challenges continue.
Independent Bodies
The Constitution establishes independent bodies to ensure the smooth functioning of democracy. These include the Election Commission, responsible for free and fair elections, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who oversees government financial activities. Their independence is protected through specific provisions ensuring their operation without political interference.
Emergency Provisions
The Indian Constitution includes detailed provisions for emergencies, allowing the President to take necessary actions during crises such as war or financial instability. The ability to shift from a federal to a unitary structure during emergencies is a distinctive feature of the Constitution, ensuring swift governance when required.
Three-tier Government
With the 73rd and 74th Amendments in 1992, India established local self-governments alongside the existing state and central systems. The amendments recognized Panchayati Raj (rural governance) and municipalities (urban governance), enhancing the democratic framework and ensuring greater local representation.
Co-operative Societies
In 2011, the 97th Constitutional Amendment granted cooperative societies constitutional status. It established the right to form these societies as a fundamental right and introduced a Directive Principle focused on promoting them, reflecting a commitment to democratic and responsible governance.
In conclusion, the Constitution of India is not only a foundational legal document but also embodies a vision for governance, representing democratic values, fundamental rights, and a commitment to justice and equality. Its comprehensive nature reflects India's diverse society and the aspirations of its people, making it a living document that evolves with the nation.
Criticism of the Constitution of India
The Constitution of India, which was created and accepted by the Constituent Assembly, has faced various criticisms over the years. While it is known for being one of the longest and most detailed constitutions in the world, some people believe that it has certain shortcomings. Here are the main points of criticism regarding the Indian Constitution:
Length and Complexity
One of the most noticeable criticisms is the length and complexity of the Constitution. At more than 450 articles, including schedules and amendments, many feel that it is too detailed and difficult for the average citizen to understand. This complexity may make it challenging for people to engage fully with their rights and responsibilities as outlined in the document.
Too Many Amendments
Another point of concern is the number of amendments made to the Constitution since it was adopted in 1950. As of October 2023, the Constitution has been amended over 100 times. Critics argue that frequent amendments show a lack of stability and may also mean that the original spirit of the Constitution can be overlooked. The power to amend the Constitution is outlined in Article 368, which allows the Parliament to make changes, but this has led to concerns about whether the amendments are in the best interest of the nation or driven by political motives.
Centralization of Power
Many have argued that the Constitution centralizes too much power in the hands of the federal government. For instance, the distribution of powers between the Centre and the states is outlined in the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List, as detailed in Article 246. Critics suggest that the powers granted to the Centre often overshadow state autonomy, leading to tension between state and central authorities. This could potentially stifle the development of regional identities and local governance.
Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles
The Constitution includes Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, outlined in Part III and Part IV. Fundamental Rights, such as the right to equality (Article 14), right to freedom (Article 19), and right against exploitation (Article 23), are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced through courts. On the other hand, Directive Principles, which include guidelines to foster social and economic welfare, are non-justiciable. Critics argue that this dichotomy leads to conflicts between implementing social policies and the protection of individual rights.
Role of the Judiciary
The judiciary has been perceived as having too much power in interpreting laws and regulations. While the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution is fundamental, critics feel that it often oversteps its boundaries, affecting the balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The concept of Judicial Review, embedded in Article 13, allows the courts to determine the validity of laws, which can sometimes lead to tension with the legislative branch.
Issues with Representation
Another criticism is related to representation in the legislative bodies. Despite having provisions for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, there are concerns that these measures might not adequately represent the diverse population of India. Article 330 and Article 331 provide for the representation of these groups in the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya Sabha (Council of States), but critics argue that there are still significant gaps in representation for women and marginalized communities.
Conclusion
Despite these criticisms, it is essential to recognize that the Constitution of India has served as a living document that has adapted to the changing needs of society over the years. It has laid the foundation for democracy and the rule of law, ensuring various rights and freedoms that empower citizens. The criticisms often lead to discussions about necessary reforms, which illustrates the Constitution's ability to evolve as it reflects the dynamic nature of Indian society. Overall, while criticisms exist, many also acknowledge that the Constitution is a remarkable achievement in the context of India's diverse and complex society.
The Concept of a Borrowed Constitution in India
Some critics argue that the Indian Constitution is not original and instead is just a collection of ideas taken from other countries' constitutions. They refer to it in various ways such as a "borrowed Constitution," a "hotch-potch Constitution," or a "patchwork" of different legal systems. However, this view is often seen as unfair and not entirely accurate.
The framers of the Indian Constitution, who worked tirelessly to establish a democratic framework for the country, did borrow some ideas and principles from other nations. However, they did significant modifications to make sure these borrowed features suited the unique needs and conditions of India. They also made sure to avoid the shortcomings present in the original documents they referenced. This means that while some parts of the Constitution may look similar to others around the world, the Indian Constitution is specially tailored for Indian society and its diverse needs.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was the chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, eloquently responded to the criticism during the Constituent Assembly debates. He pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect any new elements in a Constitution designed at a time when many other countries had already established their own written laws. Over a hundred years had passed since the first formal Constitution was created, and many countries followed suit. Therefore, the core concept of what a Constitution should include has been largely agreed upon globally.
Ambedkar emphasized that all constitutions share fundamental elements, and it is only natural that they would look similar in general terms. The real innovation lies in how these ideas are adapted to fit the specific context of the nation they serve. The Constitution of India does this by altering and revising the borrowed elements to eliminate any weaknesses and to cater to the distinct requirements of the Indian populace.
The Indian Constitution is encapsulated in various articles that highlight its structure, rights, and duties. For instance, Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Articles 12 to 35, ensure the protection of individual liberties, drawing inspiration from the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, the Directive Principles of State Policy, outlined in Articles 36 to 51, offer guidance on the social and economic welfare of citizens, reflecting ideas from the Irish Constitution.
In conclusion, while the Indian Constitution does incorporate elements from various global legal frameworks, it is far from a mere copy of other constitutions. It is a carefully crafted document that embodies the spirit, values, and needs of India. The refinements made by its framers are what truly give it originality and relevance, ensuring that it serves as a dynamic instrument for governance in a diverse society like India.
Similarities Between the Indian Constitution and the Government of India Act, 1935
Some critics of the Indian Constitution argue that it includes many elements from the Government of India Act of 1935. Because of this, they often refer to the Indian Constitution as a "carbon copy" or an "amended version" of the 1935 Act. This means that a significant number of ideas and rules from the old Act have been included in the new Constitution, leading some to believe that the framers of the Constitution did not create original ideas.
For instance, legal scholar N. Srinivasan pointed out that the Constitution is quite similar to the 1935 Act in both its language and its ideas. Sir Ivor Jennings, a well-known British expert on constitutions, also said that many sections of the Indian Constitution are very close to those found in the Government of India Act of 1935, almost word for word. Additionally, P.R. Deshmukh, who was a member of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution, remarked that “the Constitution is essentially the Government of India Act of 1935 with only adult franchise added.” This means that the main change in the Constitution was the introduction of voting rights for all adults, which was not fully realized in the 1935 Act.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, addressed these criticisms during debates in the Constituent Assembly. He defended the decision to include many provisions from the 1935 Act, saying, “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.” His point was that it is perfectly acceptable to take inspiration from earlier sources when creating a new Constitution. He noted that fundamental ideas are open to everyone and that no one can claim exclusive rights over them.
However, Dr. Ambedkar also expressed disappointment that the borrowed sections mainly focused on administrative details rather than on the broader principles of governance and rights. This indicates that while he recognized the importance of continuity in governance, he also believed that the new Constitution needed to address more profound issues of rights, freedom, and democracy.
The Government of India Act of 1935 itself was a significant step in India’s constitutional development, providing a framework for self-rule withsome limited autonomy for Indian provinces. Articles and aspects derived from this Act include the federal structure of government, the separation of powers, and provisions for a parliamentary system. However, the Indian Constitution expanded upon these ideas, incorporating elements that established a stronger emphasis on fundamental rights, social justice, and equality among its citizens.
In conclusion, while the Indian Constitution does borrow many provisions from the Government of India Act, 1935, it also innovates significantly in areas that promote democracy and individual rights, reflecting the aspirations of a diverse and evolving nation.
The critics of the Indian Constitution often argue that it is 'un-Indian' or 'anti-Indian'. They believe that the Constitution does not truly reflect India's political traditions or its unique spirit. These critics point out that the foreign influences on the Constitution make it unsuitable for Indian circumstances and question its practicality in the Indian context.
For instance, K. Hanumanthaiya, who was a member of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution, expressed his concerns by saying, "We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an English band.” This statement suggests that he felt the Constitution was heavily influenced by foreign ideas rather than aligning with India's own cultural and historical heritage. Similarly, Lokanath Misra, another member of the assembly, went on to describe the Constitution as a “slavish imitation of the west” which he viewed as an acceptance of Western ideas rather than an expression of Indian identity.
Lakshminarayan Sahu, also a member of the Constituent Assembly, shared a similar viewpoint, stating that the ideals upon which the draft Constitution was built did not align with India's fundamental spirit. He even asserted that the Constitution would not be effective in India and might fail shortly after it was implemented.
These critiques often focus on how the Indian Constitution, which was adopted in 1950, borrowed many ideas from various countries, particularly Western nations. While the Constitution is considered a significant document that laid the foundation for India's democracy, it is essential to understand that it embodies principles like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which resonate with universal democratic values.
The Constitution of India is governed by several important articles. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all individuals. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. However, the critics argue that these articles, while well-intentioned, may not wholly reflect the historical and cultural contexts that shape Indian society.
Moreover, one of the significant laws that emerged out of constitutional provisions is the 'Fundamental Rights' which were framed under Part III of the Indian Constitution. These rights aim to protect citizens from any arbitrary actions by the state and are a crucial element of Indian democracy. Nevertheless, the early critiques emphasized that the implementation and significance of these rights may often find themselves at odds with traditional practices and societal norms in India.
In conclusion, while the Indian Constitution certainly serves as a guiding document for democracy and governance, it is essential to acknowledge and critically examine the diverse opinions surrounding its origins and influence. The discussions surrounding its perceived foreignness shed light on the ongoing dialogue about what it means to be Indian in a rapidly changing world. This examination remains vital as India continues to evolve both as a nation and as a democracy, trying to balance its rich heritage with modern governance.
The Criticism of the Indian Constitution from a Gandhian Perspective
Some critics argue that the Indian Constitution does not reflect the ideas and principles of Mahatma Gandhi, who is considered the father of the nation. They believe that the Constitution should have been built around smaller local governance systems, like village and district panchayats, which Gandhi strongly advocated for. Gandhi envisioned a decentralized form of government where communities could manage their own affairs directly, promoting self-reliance and local decision-making.
One prominent member of the Constituent Assembly, K. Hanumanthaiya, expressed concerns about the framework of the Constitution, stating that it was not the kind of Constitution Gandhi would have wanted or imagined. This sentiment reflects a broader view that the Constitution did not adequately incorporate the rural and grassroots governance ideas that Gandhi championed.
Another Constituent Assembly member, T. Prakasam, suggested that the lack of Gandhian principles in the Constitution could be linked to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was the chairman of the drafting committee. Ambedkar had a different vision that prioritized social justice and the upliftment of marginalized groups, which sometimes contrasted with Gandhi's focus on village-based governance. Critics argue that Ambedkar’s absence from the Gandhian movement, as well as his differing perspectives, led to this divergence in constitutional philosophy.
Constitutional Articles and Laws
The Indian Constitution comprises numerous articles that outline the framework of governance in the country. For example, Articles 40 and 243B encourage the establishment of Panchayati Raj institutions, which represent a form of local self-governance that resonates with Gandhi's principles. Article 40 states that "the State shall take steps to organize village panchayats" to promote self-governance. Additionally, Article 243B provides for the composition of panchayats at various levels, including villages and districts.
However, critics argue that while these provisions exist, the overall structure of the Constitution leans more toward centralized authority rather than empowering local self-governance as Gandhi envisioned. The critics contend that this centralization diminishes the role of village panchayats and does not fulfill Gandhian ideals.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the Indian Constitution reflects a significant tension between different visions of governance. While the Constitution includes provisions for local self-governance, critics like Hanumanthaiya and Prakasam highlight that it could have embraced more of Gandhi's philosophy, emphasizing decentralized power and community-driven governance. By exploring these ideas, we can better understand the complexities and historical context surrounding the formation of India's fundamental law.
The Indian Constitution has often been criticized for being very large and detailed. Some people believe it includes too many rules and sections that may not be necessary. For instance, Sir Ivor Jennings, a well-known British expert on constitutions, pointed out that not all of the parts included in India's Constitution were chosen wisely. He described it as long and complicated, which can make it difficult for many people to understand.
H.V. Kamath, who was a member of the Constituent Assembly responsible for drafting the Constitution, also commented on its size. He pointed out that the emblem of the Assembly is an elephant, which is a large animal. He suggested that just like the emblem, the Constitution has turned out to be one of the biggest in the world. Kamath expressed his concern that nobody should want a Constitution that is as cumbersome as an elephant.
The size and complexity of the Indian Constitution have both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, its detailed nature allows it to cover a wide range of issues, from fundamental rights of citizens to the responsibilities of the government. Articles like Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, and Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, show the Constitution's commitment to protecting individual rights.
On the other hand, the extensive nature of the Constitution can limit accessibility. Many citizens may struggle to understand their rights and the laws that govern them due to the dense legal language used throughout the document. Moreover, the Constitution has over 450 articles, along with several schedules that contain additional details. This bulkiness has led to calls for simplification and amendment over the years to make it easier for the average person to comprehend.
In summary, while the Indian Constitution is praised for its comprehensive coverage of rights and responsibilities, it is also criticized for its large size, which makes it difficult for many to engage with. The balance between thoroughness and clarity remains an ongoing topic of discussion in the realm of Indian law and governance.
The Indian Constitution is often criticized for being overly complicated and filled with legal jargon. Critics argue that the way laws are written can make it difficult for regular people to understand. This has led to the view that the Constitution serves lawyers very well. For instance, Sir Ivor Jennings, a well-known constitutional expert, even referred to it as a “lawyer’s paradise.”
H.K. Maheshwari, who was part of the group that created the Constitution, made a notable remark regarding its impact on society. He suggested that the Constitution encourages people to be more inclined to go to court for disputes, rather than resolving them amicably. He worried that this inclination could lead to a lack of honesty and a decreased commitment to truth and non-violence. Maheshwari believed that the Constitution opens up many opportunities for legal battles, meaning that lawyers would have plenty to do and engage in.
Similarly, P.R. Deshmukh, another member of the Constituent Assembly, shared his thoughts on the lengthy and complicated nature of the Constitution. He felt that the way it was drafted resembled a heavy law textbook, rather than a clear and straightforward governing document. Deshmukh argued that instead of being a complex legal manual, the Constitution should serve as a socio-political guide that captures the spirit and vitality of the nation. This means it should resonate with the people and be more accessible, rather than bogged down with excessive wording that could have been simplified.
In the context of the Indian Constitution, several articles address these issues of complexity and accessibility. For instance, Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, which implies that the law should be understandable and equitable for everyone. Furthermore, Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which could be seen as advocating for a system where citizens can easily navigate legal processes without needing extensive legal knowledge.
Moreover, the Indian Constitution has provisions that aim to promote legal awareness among citizens. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is one such example, intended to provide free legal services to those in need and ensure that justice is accessible to all, thereby reducing the complexity experienced by the common person.
In summary, while the Indian Constitution is a crucial document that sets the framework for governance and rights, its language and complexity often lead to a view that it benefits lawyers. The call for a more straightforward and approachable Constitution resonates with many who believe in making laws understandable for everyone, promoting a culture of truth and peaceful resolution over litigations.