The relevance of the Constitution of India in the context of today

Everyone needs to note the UNO’s resolution in this regard passed by the General Assembly on 8^th September 2006 read as follows:

“The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming, in all its aspects, the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted on 8 September 2006, which enhances the overall framework for the efforts of the international community to effectively counter the scourge of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”

The continuous concern over the increasing number of terrorist attacks all over the world perhaps the biggest of it being 9-11 in the US, the international community was shaken as never before.

This concern looked more heinous than the nuclear devastation and led the leading nations in the world to take serious note of the challenge, it did, in the conference of the G20 which promulgated an action-oriented plan which led them to announce the Leaders’ Declaration dated 16 November 2022, which in unequivocal terms has invited the international attention towards the role played by money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.

The G20 continued its concern in its 50th para as follows:

“50. We recognize the need for the international community to step up their efforts to effectively combat money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation financing. We reaffirm our commitment to delivering the strategic priorities of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and its FATF Style Regional Bodies (SRBs) to lead global action to respond to these threats.”

In other words, G20 has raised a serious pointer to the impending threat to international peace and stability as every country is facing the threat. The purpose of referring to the two international bodies is that these two bodies also have expressed the same anxiety and served a caution note. The point I am raising is a doubt that in view of the above reference, can the Indian Constitution withstand and successfully retaliate with effective measures against the threats the Indian State would be required to face.

With the 60 years of rule in the Indian State –a newborn State but one of the oldest Nations enriched by its fine civilised culture and society, presently governed by a political party which had lost all its political will to fight corruption and national security concerns (I am aware that this is a sweeping statement) was substituted by the alert Nation and in 2014 when there arrived a party with a strong political will and self-confidence at the helm of affairs, several scams and anti-national secrets and conspiracies were disclosed to the nation. The nation is still under traumatic shock.

What will be the role of the Constitution of India?

At the outset let us look at the Constitutional history. On 17^th.November 1949 Dr B. R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, at the instance of Dr Rajendra Prasad who was the President of the Assembly presiding over the proceedings of the House, tabled the motion which stated: “that the Constitution as settled by the Assembly be passed”.

Let us now take a quick look at the structure of the Constitution.

There are twenty-two Parts; Twelve Schedules and 395 Articles, the document which provides safety and protection of the life and property of the citizens. Article 395 repeals the two Acts administering the earlier laws passed by the British Parliament i.e. House of Commons for India viz., Indian Independence Act, 1947, and Government of India Act,1935.

The government of India Act of 1935 too contained 14 Parts and 321 Articles and the Indian Independence Act, of 1947 contained 20 Sections and 3 Schedules.

In view of the above, I have a few questions for which I have no satisfactory explanations.

a) Article 1 of the Constitution states India That is Bharat, what does it suggest?

b) In 1950, in the preamble, the terms such as secularism and socialism were not incorporated; it was only during the emergency period i.e. 1975-1977 found the place without any public debate. Why?

c) In my opinion, the rich and ancient culture of India i.e. Bharat does not reflect in the Constitution, there is no soul, only body. Why?

d) It is worth pondering the fact that in 75 years there are 122 amendments.

e) The Directive Principles as enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution are not enforceable. Then why are these there?

f) The Judiciary in India is itself unclear about the interpretation of the terms like secularism, and the culture of the land for whom it accords its rulings on various disputes, it seems that it is still under the influence of British colonialism.

g) When the original preamble of 1950 was revised in 1975 during the emergency, why was the judiciary silent?

h) The Judiciary seems to be orthodox to entertain its own reforms. Why?

i) Is the judiciary the only tenet of democracy? What about peoples’ will?

j) There is an absence of rules on the behavioural pattern of the elected representatives on the floor of the House. At present, it has become a shameful one.

k) The common man is surprised and at dismay when he learns that hardcore terrorists are handcuffed by the Police after careful investigation and get freed on bail under the orders of the court. The reason—the judiciary is not satisfied, and bail is granted for want of evidence. The question is: What is more important—National Security or rule of law?

There are several other questions which remain unanswered in the minds of citizens.

Here are some references from the Constituent Assembly debates held on 17^th November 1949:

Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay (Madras: General): Mr President, Sir, I stand before this august Assembly to support the Motion moved by my honourable friend, Dr Ambedkar. Sir, I will be failing in my duty if I do not refer to the magnanimous way in which you have conducted the proceedings of this august Assembly in preparing the Constitution of this great land of ours. Sir, as one of the signatories of the epoch-making Poona Pact, you will be happy today that we have opened a new chapter in the history of India by giving equal opportunities to all classes and sections of the people who inhabit India.

Sir, I proceed now to appreciate the great services that have been rendered by the Drafting Committee whose services are so valuable to us; they have not spared days and nights in coming to decisions on important articles. I must say a word of praise to the calibre and capacity of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee--Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. (Loud cheers.) Coming as I do from a community that has produced Dr Ambedkar, I feel proud that his capacity has now been recognized, not only by the Harijans but by all communities that inhabit India. The Scheduled Castes have produced a great Nandanar a great devotee, a Tirupazanalwar a great Vaishnaivite saint, and above all a Tiruvalluvar, the great philosopher whose name and fame is not only known throughout the length and breadth of India but of the whole word.

Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay: We come under the special label of Harijans. On behalf of the Harijans, I may assure you and the future Government of India that the Harijans to the last man will uphold the Constitution that has been passed by the Constituent Assembly and work it to the very letter and spirit.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s remarks on the functioning of the Drafting Committee are in a sense eye-openers. He said: I suppose I must come to a close. I owe some apology to this House for criticising the Drafting Committee in this manner, but thanks are also due to the Drafting Committee for the troubles they have been put to. It must be acknowledged in all fairness that the Drafting Committee did its best; they worked very hard but worked without any definite, settled or fixed plan. They began to change their plans every day and that is why so many anomalies have resulted. They were however in many cases forced by the Party in power. There is another anomalous position. Part VI deals with the Provinces. In order to adapt this to the States, Part VII was introduced with some adapting sentences. These sentences are in a most perfunctory condition and they could and should have been incorporated in Part VI. It would have been very easy to say that wherever there is the word "Governor" the words "or Rajpramukh" be added. That would have been quite simple. I gave notice of Amendment No. 364 to this effect. I did as well as possible and the only thing for the Drafting Committee was to accept the same with modifications if they desired. That would have made the thing sensible and a continuous whole. The provisions relating to the Provinces and the States have been combined in all other places except this. But I believe the Drafting Committee was tired and they must have been absolutely overworked and were unable to go further, though this improvement was desirable. My amendment was readymade and only a little revision would have been done. In closing my brief remarks which for want of time are of a sketchy nature, I cannot but mention the deep debt of gratitude which we owe to you, Sir, personally. Whatever has been done in the House, you were the guardian of Members who found it their duty to speak against the Drafting Committee and you did your work so wisely, so liberally and so well that the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to you. You have been extremely watchful of the proceedings--not that you did not follow the anomalies which the Drafting Committee was committing, but it was not in your province to interfere on the merits--and you gave the greatest latitude to the Members who found it an unpleasant duty of speaking against the Drafting Committee. Sir, with all these and many other faults, I submit that the Draft Constitution should be accepted. It is not the drafting that matters. The drafting is very bad, it will lead to innumerable cases, as Mr T. T. Krishnamachari in a different capacity suggested, on which lawyers will delight, but I believe that the success of the Constitution depends upon the spirit in which it is worked. If it is worked well, this bad Constitution, lame as it may be, will give encouraging results and will make the people of India freer and freer politically and economically with the passage of time.

In the same session, Shri B. Das put his disappointment in the following way: Sir, the Drafting Committee has given us a Constitution of 395 articles. It is a Mahabharata in Constitution and in History. The Constitution that the British Parliament framed had 321 sections while the Constitution we have made has 395 articles. Well, the circumstances over which the Drafting committee had not controlled them to increase the number of articles in the constitution. Perhaps it was like the soldiers running amuck. Therefore they must stiffen and amplify so that the Constitution will be understood by everybody. If I may say so, they have done away with the work of the legal interpreters. This Constitution of 395 articles does not need, any Bhashyakars or commentators. Sir, the machinery that this Constitution envisages places at the top a cabinet with joints.

It is interesting to note the observations made by the President of the Constituent Assembly Dr Rajendra Prasad which are as follows:

In brief-

a. A written Constitution for a huge size and cosmopolitan population.

b. Problem of British Indian States and over 650 Princely States when the Princely States assumed sovereignty.

c. Drafting Committee constituted by the Assembly worked on the original draft prepared by B. N. Rau.

d. Combination of Federal and Unitary types of States.

e. For the first time in Indian history, there was a Republic

f. President, Upper Houses are indirectly elected.

g. For the first time there was an adult franchise in Indian history.

h. Independent Judiciary.

i. The Constitution produced Independent agencies like UPSC, Comptroller and Auditor-General, Election Commission.

j. Problem of official language.

k. Flexible procedure of amendment.

l. Directive principles which are guidelines but not enforceable.

m. Two regrets: (I) Minimum qualification for Legislatures, (ii) Constitution was not written in any Bharatiy Language.

n. We require a willingness to accept others’ points of view, capacity for compromises, and accommodation.

o. Dr. Rajendra Prasad concluded by lauding the great efforts of the Drafting Committee and Dr B. R. Ambedkar by saying: “Before I close, I must express my thanks to all the Members of this august Assembly from whom I have received not only courtesy but, if I may say so, also their respect and affection. Sitting in the Chair and watching the proceedings from day to day. I have realised as nobody else could have, with what zeal and devotion the members of the Drafting Committee and especially its Chairman, Dr Ambedkar in spite of his indifferent health, have worked. (Cheers). We could never make a decision which was or could be ever so right as when we put him on the Drafting Committee and made him its Chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added lustre to the work which he has done. In this connection, it would be invidious to make any distinction among the other members of the Committee. I know they have all worked with the same zeal and devotion as its Chairman, and they deserve the thanks of the country.”

Dr Rajendra Prasad was a statesman and a great nationalist. He was hurt by the fact that the Constitution of Bharat even after independence, had to be written in English which was the language of the imperial ruler, and not in any Indian language. Let us not forget that it was Dr Rajendra Prasad who against the wishes of a powerful Congressman, moreover who was the Prime Minister of the country, all the way went to Somnath Temple to revive and remind the Indian nation of its rich glorious past.

Finally, it will suffice to share my concern that a time has come to think of to consider to revise the Constitution whose destination would be to safeguard the ancient civilisation which India i.e. Bharat inherits.