Constitution — Why and How? — Practice

Question 1

Read the Preamble excerpt: 'We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE (social, economic, political); LIBERTY (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship); EQUALITY (of status and of opportunity); and to promote among them all FRATERNITY.' Explain any TWO of the underlined terms in the context of India's constitutional values.

Accepted Answer

**SECULAR**:
Secularism in the Indian Constitution means: (i) The state has NO official religion — unlike Pakistan (Islam) or Israel (Judaism). (ii) The state treats all religions with EQUAL RESPECT (positive secularism), not separation (US-style). (iii) No religious instruction in government-aided schools. (iv) Personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian) are respected but must comply with constitutional rights. Added to Preamble by 42nd Amendment (1976). In practice: India has Muslim Personal Law Board, Hindu temples under government control, Christian missionary schools funded by state — a complex pluralism, not American-style strict separation.

**FRATERNITY**:
Fraternity means a sense of BROTHERHOOD — that all citizens, regardless of caste, religion, gender, or region, are part of ONE national community. It specifically 'assures the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.' Fraternity is the VALUE that makes the other three possible: without a sense of common belonging, equality (removing caste discrimination) and liberty (of minorities) are contested. Ambedkar particularly emphasised fraternity because caste division was India's deepest obstacle to constitutional citizenship — formal equality on paper means nothing without social recognition of equal human dignity.

Question 2

India borrowed features from many constitutions. For each feature below, name the source country and explain briefly WHY India chose to adopt it: (a) Parliamentary form of government, (b) Directive Principles of State Policy, (c) Judicial Review, (d) Concurrent List.

Accepted Answer

(a) **Parliamentary system → United Kingdom**:
Why borrowed: India had experience with parliamentary institutions under British rule (provincial legislatures, Central Legislative Assembly). The system makes the executive ACCOUNTABLE to the legislature — the Prime Minister and Cabinet can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This accountability suits a multi-party democracy more than the US presidential system (where the President serves a fixed term regardless of legislative support). The Constituent Assembly debated this and chose parliamentary over presidential — fearing that in a diverse India, a directly elected president might concentrate too much power.

(b) **Directive Principles of State Policy → Ireland**:
Why borrowed: India's challenge was not just political freedom but social and economic transformation (poverty, untouchability, landlessness). DPSPs give the government GOALS to achieve over time — equal pay for equal work (Art 39), free legal aid (Art 39A), village panchayats (Art 40) — without making them legally enforceable (which courts couldn't enforce against resource constraints). Ireland had a similar approach in its 1937 Constitution for a newly independent, economically challenged nation.

(c) **Judicial Review → USA**:
Why borrowed: Judicial review — the court's power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution — protects Fundamental Rights from parliamentary majority. The USA's experience (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) demonstrated that without judicial review, the Bill of Rights is meaningless paper. India's Constituent Assembly wanted courts to be the GUARDIAN of the Constitution, not Parliament.

(d) **Concurrent List → Australia**:
Why borrowed: In federal systems, some subjects (education, marriage, forests, trade unions) cannot be neatly assigned to either Centre or States — they affect both. Australia's constitution had a Concurrent List allowing BOTH Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws on these subjects, with central law prevailing in case of conflict. This flexibility suited India's complex governance needs better than a strict two-list system.

Question 3

Critically evaluate whether the Constituent Assembly was truly 'representative' of India. Include: who was represented, who was not, what processes ensured diverse voices were heard, and whether the resulting Constitution reflects the concerns of all sections.

Accepted Answer

**Who WAS represented**:
(i) Geographic diversity: Members from all provinces of British India (296) and Princely States (93) — after Partition, 299 members from Indian territory.
(ii) Community representation: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Anglo-Indians — through communal/minority seat allocation.
(iii) Women: 15 women members including Sarojini Naidu, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Amrit Kaur (Minorities Sub-Committee), G. Durgabai.
(iv) Dalits/Scheduled Castes: Ambedkar himself was the most prominent Dalit representative — his chairmanship of the Drafting Committee ensured Dalit concerns were central.
(v) Political diversity: Congress majority but also League members (briefly), Communists, Socialists, Liberals.

**Limitations — who was underrepresented**:
(i) Indirectly elected: Members were chosen by provincial legislatures (themselves elected on limited franchise with property qualification before 1947). Not directly elected by universal adult franchise.
(ii) Overwhelmingly English-educated elite: Most members were lawyers, professionals, intellectuals. The landless peasant, factory worker, or tribal community had no direct voice — their interests were represented BY elite members who CLAIMED to speak for them.
(iii) Women grossly underrepresented: Only 15 women out of 299 — 5%. India's female population was 50%.
(iv) Tribal communities: Scheduled Tribes had some representation but minimal — the Constitution's tribal provisions (Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule) were negotiated primarily by educated tribal representatives and sympathetic non-tribal leaders.

**Processes ensuring diverse voices**:
(i) 22 Committees: Fundamental Rights Committee, Advisory Committee on Minorities, Drafting Committee — each consulted widely.
(ii) Extensive floor debates: Every clause was debated over 165 days of Assembly sittings. Members spoke in English AND Indian languages.
(iii) Public submissions: Provincial assemblies and public organisations submitted memoranda.
(iv) Consensus approach: Rather than voting on contested issues, the Assembly sought consensus — minority objections were heard and accommodated where possible.

**Does the Constitution reflect all sections?**:
Fundamental Rights (Part III) directly addressed elite concerns (property right, free speech, equality). DPSPs addressed working-class, peasant, and welfare concerns (living wage, free legal aid, protection of health). However, critics note: (i) No socioeconomic rights (right to work, housing) as justiciable FRs; (ii) Tribal land rights inadequately protected initially (Fifth Schedule was weak); (iii) Women's personal law reform (uniform civil code) was deferred to a DPSP (Art 44) rather than a FR, reflecting political compromise over Muslim personal law. Overall, the Assembly produced a document remarkable for its time — but reflecting the constraints of a newly independent, socially unequal, politically diverse nation.

Practice — Constitution — Why and How?

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities