The Enforcement and Criticism of the Constitution of India marks a historic milestone in India’s journey toward self-governance. The Constitution, a result of extensive deliberation and vision, came into effect on 26 January 1950, symbolizing India’s transition to a Republic. Understanding its enforcement and criticisms helps students and aspirants of civil services grasp the evolution of Indian democracy, the process of constitution-making, and the lessons learned from its formative years.
Enforcement and Criticism of the Constitution of India (1949–1950): Journey from Formation to Evaluation
-
The enforcement of the Constitution of India was not merely a legal act but a defining moment in the nation’s democratic rebirth.
It signified the culmination of India’s long freedom struggle and its transformation into a sovereign republic guided by the rule of law. The Constitution was brought into force in phases to ensure smooth transition and effective governance after independence.
- (i) Some provisions dealing with citizenship, elections, provisional parliament, and transitional clauses (Articles 5–9, 60, 324, 366, 367, 379–380, 388, 391–393) came into force on 26 November 1949—the very day the Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly.
- (ii) The remaining and more substantial parts of the Constitution became operative on 26 January 1950—the date celebrated as Republic Day, marking the official commencement of the Indian Constitution.
- (iii) The selection of 26 January held deep symbolic significance, commemorating the Purna Swaraj Day—the declaration of complete independence made during the December 1929 Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress.
- (iv) Upon its enforcement, the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Government of India Act 1935 (with all amendments) were repealed, though certain laws like the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 continued to remain valid for legal purposes.
-
Criticism of the Constituent Assembly of India
The Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution, despite its monumental contribution, faced several criticisms regarding its composition, process, and perceived biases. Scholars, leaders, and observers both from India and abroad expressed concerns about its representativeness and efficiency.
-
Lack of Representation and Sovereignty
The Assembly was criticized for not being fully representative and sovereign. It was not directly elected through universal adult suffrage, and it operated under British Government proposals, limiting its independence to some extent. Many believed that such a body could not entirely reflect the democratic will of the people it sought to serve.
- (i) The members were chosen indirectly, giving rise to doubts about the Assembly’s democratic legitimacy.
- (ii) Since it functioned under British constitutional plans, many questioned whether it truly embodied the aspirations of a free India.
- (iii) This criticism was often voiced by political opponents and conservative British figures who viewed the Assembly as a transitional rather than a sovereign institution.
-
Duration and Efficiency Criticism
The extended duration of constitution-making drew significant criticism from political leaders and commentators. The drafting process, lasting nearly three years, was viewed by some as unnecessarily prolonged, especially when compared to the rapid framing of the U.S. Constitution within four months.
- (a) Critics such as Naziruddin Ahmed humorously referred to the Drafting Committee as the “Drifting Committee,” mocking the delays and repeated revisions.
- (b) Yet, these delays stemmed from the framers’ commitment to inclusivity and detailed debate—a necessity for a diverse and newly independent nation.
- (c) The long deliberations ensured that every clause was discussed with precision, reflecting India’s federal, cultural, and linguistic diversity.
-
Dominance and Social Representation
Critics argued that the Constituent Assembly lacked balanced representation, being dominated by the Indian National Congress and lawyer-politicians. This concentration of influence led to concerns about bias and limited participation from grassroots and minority groups.
- Congress Dominance: Historian Granville Austin famously called it “a one-party body in a one-party country,” highlighting Congress’s overwhelming control.
- Lawyer–Politician Control: The Assembly’s legalistic approach, driven by trained lawyers and politicians, resulted in a detailed but complex document.
- Hindu Majority Influence: Western observers like Lord Viscount Simon and Winston Churchill alleged that the Assembly primarily represented the majority community, undermining the idea of true inclusivity.
-
Summary: Enforcement and Criticism of the Constitution of India
The Enforcement and Criticism of the Indian Constitution together reveal the strengths and challenges of India’s constitutional journey. While its enforcement in 1950 established a democratic, republican framework rooted in equality and justice, the criticisms underscore the imperfections of its inception. For students and aspirants, understanding this period provides deep insights into how India balanced idealism with realism, and how the Constitution continues to evolve as a living document of the world’s largest democracy.
Constituent Assembly of India – Formation, Working, and Enactment of the Constitution
