Critics believe that the Indian constitution is extra-long and complex and has few irrelevant parts. According to Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, the provisions of the Indian constitution are borrowed from other Countries’ constitutions. Moreover, in the constituent assembly, each article of the Indian constitution was criticised with constructive criticism.

Criticism of Indian Constitution

Criticisms of the constitution of India on different grounds by the critics are mentioned below, along with a critical examination of the ideological basis of the Indian constitution.

  • Indian constitution does not have a representative body: In the constituent assembly, the critics criticised the Indian constitution as not having a representative body
  • Hence, the member of the Indian constitution is not directly elected by the Indians using their universal adult franchise
  • Constituent Assembly is not a sovereign body: The critics also pointed out that the constituent assembly is not a sovereign body
  • It was only created because of the proposals given by the British Government
  • The Hindus dominate the Indian constitution: Among the other criticisms of the constitution of India, few critics pointed out that the Hindus dominate it
  • According to Lord Viscount Simon, it is a body of Hindus only. Winston Churchill stated that it belongs to only one big community in India
  • The Congress dominates the Indian constitution: Critics commented that the Indian constitution was dominated by the Congress only
  • According to British Constitutional expert Granville Austin, the constituent assembly was only a party body in a one-party country. It was only the Indian congress assembly
  • The assembly means Congress, and the Congress was in India
  • Indian constitution is a borrowed constitution: There is nothing new and original in the Indian constitution for many critics
  • According to the Critics, the Indian constitution is a borrowing constitution or ‘bag of borrowings’
  • Carbon copy of the act of 1935: Critics critically examine the ideological basis of the Indian constitution and explain that the Indian constitution incorporates maximum laws and clauses from the Indian Government’s 1935 Act
  • According to Prof. N. Srinivasan, the constitution of India, both in cases of substance and language, is a carbon copy of the Government’s 1935 Act
  • A British Constitutionalist named Sir Ivor Jennings stated that the Indian Constitution directly followed all the textual copies from the Indian Government 1935 Act
  • Anti-India Constitution: Another criticism of the Indian constitution is that it is anti-Indian or un-Indian because India’s spirits and political traditions are not reflected in the Indian constitution
  • The Indian constitution’s foreign type of nature is unsuitable in Indian conditions, and they also stated that it does not work in India
  • For Loknath Misra, the Indian constitution is a slavish imitation of the west
  • Very large constitution: Indian constitution is a very large constitution consisting of 145,000 words and 395 articles when it comes into existence
  • And it was considered the world’s largest constitution framed between 1947 to 1950
  • Hence, it is overly long and complicated for the critics, consisting of a few unnecessary elements
  • Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, commented that the borrowed provisions were not well-selected, and it was excessively complicated and long
  • Un-Gandhian Constitution: Critics opined that the Indian constitution is an Un-Gandhian constitution as it lacks the ideology and principles of the father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi
  • According to the critics, our constitution must be based on district panchayats and villages
  • K. Hanumanthaiah stated that Mahatma Gandhi never wanted and envisaged this type of constitution
  • Lawyers paradise: Critics thought that the Indian constitution is very legalistic
  • They claimed that the legal terminology and phraseology of the constitution make the Indian constitution a difficult document to understand
  • According to Sir Ivor Jennings, the Indian constitution is a lawyer’s paradise
  • Not only this, but critics also felt that lawyers and politicians dominated the constituent assembly
  • They stated that other social aspects are not correctly represented
  • They believed that this was the primary cause of the volume of the Indian constitution and the complications of its language

Conclusion

Many critics criticised the Indian constitution on many grounds. However, many criticisms are illogical and unfair. It happens because the framers of the Indian constitution made the necessary changes to the characteristics of the Indian constitution that are adopted from other constitutions for making it suitable for Indian conditions by avoiding all the flaws. Although the Indian constitution faces much criticism now and then, the constitution was discussed thoroughly and voted on by all the constituent assembly members.