Criticism of the Constituent Assembly

According to opponents, the Indian Constitution is unnecessarily lengthy and convoluted, with unnecessary provisions. Sir Ivor Jennings, a British constitutionalist, said that the borrowed clauses were not always well-chosen and that the constitution was, in general, overly long and complex. It was even carefully debated in the constituent assembly, each article at a time, with constructive critique.

Criticism of the Constituent Assembly

Many objections might be levelled against the Indian Constitution, three of which are worth mentioning briefly: first, that it is cumbersome; second, that it is unrepresentative; and third, that it is foreign to our circumstances.

The complaint that it is cumbersome is based on the notion that a country’s entire constitution must be contained in a single compact text. However, this is not the case even in countries with compact constitutions, such as the United States.

In reality, a country’s constitution is to be recognised with a compact text and other written documents with constitutional validity. As a result, essential constitutional pronouncements and practices can be found outside a single compact instrument. In the case of India, many such information practices and assertions are incorporated in a single document, which has resulted in a relatively huge document.

Many countries, for example, do not have provisions for an electoral commission or a civil service commission in their constitution. However, in India, many of these issues are addressed by the Constitution.

Key factors of criticism 

• Unrepresentative Character of the Constituent Assembly: The Indian Constitution has been criticised since the Constituent Assembly that drafted it was not a representative body. It was not chosen by the people using the universal adult franchise. Because elections to that Assembly were held based on a limited franchise, most members came from the educated and advanced parts of society. They were not representatives chosen by the people.
• Longest Constitution in the World: Another criticism levelled at the Indian Constitution is that being the world’s longest constitution, it has become a lawyer’s paradise. It consists of 395 articles and 12 schedules. No other country’s constitution has as many articles as the Indian Constitution.
• A Bag of Borrowings: Another criticism levelled at the Indian Constitution is a collection of borrowed documents. The structure of our constitution took the majority of its provisions from other constitutions such as the constitutions of England, the United States, Ireland, Germany, Canada, and Australia, among others.
• Too many limits on basic rights: the Indian Constitution is also attacked for imposing too many restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights. In the words of M.C. Chhagala, “the Constitution of India grants fundamental rights with one hand and snatches them away with the other.” Furthermore, many social and economic rights are not included in the chapter on Fundamental Rights. They have been included in the unjustifiable directive principles of state policy.
• The central government is very strong: While the Indian Constitution allows for a federal system of government throughout, critics point out that the central government has been made very strong, which is why our constitution is described as federal in form but unitary in spirit. However, despite these limits and critiques, the Indian constitution has been operating successfully and has evolved with time and changing circumstances to meet all crises throughout the previous 59 years effectively.

Limitations

Everything does not imply that the Indian Constitution is perfect and flawless. Given the historical context in which the constitution was drafted, it was obvious that there would be many contentious issues and that many sections would require rigorous modification. Many characteristics of this Constitution arose primarily due to the needs of the period. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that our Constitution has numerous limits.

Let us quickly discuss the Constitution’s restrictions.

• Firstly, the Indian Constitution places a premium on national unity
• Second, it appears to have brushed over several critical gender justice concerns, notably inside the family
• Third, it is unclear why, in a poor developing nation, many essential socioeconomic rights were consigned to the section on Directive Principles rather than being incorporated into our fundamental rights

It is feasible to provide solutions to these constraints, explain why this occurred, and even transcend them. That, however, is not our point. We contend that these limits are not substantial enough to jeopardise the Constitution’s philosophy.

Conclusion

This ideology is expressed in the Constitution. The institutional arrangements examined in this book are founded on a basic and widely shared vision. Historically, that perspective has arisen due to our battle for freedom. 

The Constituent Assembly served as the venue for stating, refining and articulating this idea in legal-institutional form. As a result, no document can be flawless, and no ideas can be entirely realised.

Constitution becomes the physical manifestation of this idea. Many people believe that the preamble to our Constitution is the greatest summary of this vision or philosophy.