The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, stands as the bedrock of the world’s largest democracy, embodying the hopes and dreams of a diverse and vibrant nation. More than a legal framework, it is a living document that has evolved alongside India’s people, adapting to their shifting aspirations and challenges. For over seven decades, the Constitution has served as both a guide and a mirror, reflecting the country’s complex journey toward social justice, equality, and fraternity.
Today, the Constitution is at the centre of intense debate in the Parliament, fuelled by the ruling party’s leaders and their vision for the nation’s future. These discussions delve into the soul of what India represents and the kind of society it aspires to be. Examining this ongoing discourse requires understanding the motivations driving these debates and the potential influence of ideological underpinnings from the ruling party’s parent organisation.
A Glimpse into History of Constitution
The journey of the Constitution began on November 4, 1948, when its draft was introduced in the Constituent Assembly. After over a year of rigorous debate and refinement, the Assembly adopted it on November 26, 1949, now celebrated as Constitution Day. It officially came into effect on January 26, 1950, marking the Republic Day.
The Constitution aimed to establish India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, ensuring a balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It enshrined fundamental rights, promising equality, justice, and freedom to all citizens while laying the groundwork for a society rooted in fraternity and inclusivity.
Major Amendments
Over the decades, India’s socio-political realities necessitated changes to its Constitution. By September 2024, the document had seen 106 amendments. Some of the most notable include:
- First Amendment (1951): Curbed freedom of speech to maintain public order and expanded states’ authority in personal law and property.
- Seventh Amendment (1956): Reorganised states and territories, reshaping boundaries to accommodate linguistic and cultural diversity.
- Forty-Second Amendment (1977): Introduced “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble and curtailed judicial review during the Emergency.
- Forty-Fourth Amendment (1979): Restored balance between the legislature and judiciary after the Emergency, safeguarding the fundamental ‘Right to Life and Liberty.’
- Eighty-Sixth Amendment (2002): Guaranteed the Right to Education for children up to age fourteen.
- Eighty-Ninth Amendment (2003): Established the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, ensuring greater protection for marginalised communities.
These amendments reflect the Constitution’s adaptability in addressing challenges while upholding democracy and justice.
Major Themes in the Debate
- Interpretation of Fundamental Rights
One pressing issue is how fundamental rights are interpreted. The ruling party has suggested changes that could weaken individual rights and give the state more control. This raises questions about balancing state power with individual freedoms and the implications for marginalised communities.
Such interpretations threaten the rights of vulnerable groups and jeopardise the democratic foundation that guarantees freedoms like speech, religion, and assembly. Vigilance and unity are essential in defending these liberties against intrusion.
- Federalism vs. Centralism
The debate over federalism versus centralism is intensifying, particularly with recent instances where the central government has overridden state decisions on sensitive issues. India’s democratic structure was designed to empower state governments to work alongside the central authority. However, political moves in the recent past, such as dismissing elected state governments and imposing President’s Rule, raise concerns about the erosion of state autonomy and the shift towards a more centralised governance system.
- Role of the Judiciary
The judiciary’s independence is under scrutiny amid allegations of attempts by the ruling party to influence judicial appointments. Apparently, this threatens judicial independence, potentially leading to decisions favouring the ruling party’s ideology.
Yet, a handful of landmark rulings have reaffirmed the judiciary’s critical function in upholding constitutional rights. The ongoing tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive prompts a re-examination of democratic checks and balances. The debate over “judicial activism versus judicial restraint” carries significant weight in shaping constitutional interpretations.
Hidden Objectives of Power Holders
In recent years, ruling party leaders have often emphasised “efficiency” and “responsiveness” in governance, narratives that appeal to some but often obscure what many see as judicial overreach. They risk undermining the Constitution’s core principles of power separation and individual rights by framing judicial checks and balances as barriers to progress.
While proposed reforms may appear to align with public aspirations, they often rely on nationalistic rhetoric that alienates minorities and deepens societal divisions. The emphasis on a singular national identity marginalises dissent, creating an atmosphere where opposing views are labelled unpatriotic.
The government’s increasing control over institutions such as the judiciary and election bodies raises serious concerns about their independence and the health of democratic discourse. Centralising power weakens checks and balances, suppresses debate, violates freedom of expression, and threatens pluralism essential to India’s democracy.
This consolidation of power risks sidelining diverse voices and edging towards authoritarianism, prioritising the ruling party’s agenda over citizens’ rights. The erosion of democratic norms calls for vigilance from citizens, civil society, and opposition forces. Safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring inclusive representation are critical to preserving the spirit of Indian democracy.
The Parent Organisation’s Perspective
The ruling party’s ideological parent organisation influences its policies and narratives. Its vision of Indian identity is deeply rooted in self-styled ‘Hindu nationalism’. The party has historically opposed and criticised aspects of the Constitution, viewing it as overly liberal and influenced by Western philosophies. This perspective has driven calls for reinterpreting constitutional values to reflect a homogeneous understanding of Indian identity centred on Hindu cultural dominance.
Its agendas often manifest in calls to amend articles or reframe constitutional interpretations, aligning with its Hindutva perspective. These agendas raise concerns about marginalising non-Hindu communities and minority voices. Cultural initiatives reflecting its preferences could reshape societal understanding of the Constitution and citizenship, compromising democratic and secular values.
- Hidden Agendas: Evidence and Implications
Recent strategic moves suggest an intent to reshape the constitutional landscape in favour of a centralised narrative. Proposals like the Common Civil Code (Uniform Civil Code) aim to unify personal laws across religions that are ever unacceptable to the concerned communities. While supporters claim it promotes gender justice, the fact is that it undermines religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Civil society organisations, activists, and political opponents have voiced strong resistance to these moves, reflecting growing awareness of constitutional implications. Shifts towards authoritarian governance, curbing dissent, and reinterpreting constitutional provisions could weaken public trust in democratic institutions. If unchecked, this track threatens the principles of justice, equity, and pluralism.
- Opposition’s Response
The opposition parties have articulated strong counterarguments against the ruling party’s agenda, striving to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution. They have emphasised the importance of upholding democratic norms and safeguarding minority rights. This strategic alignment among various opposition factions is crucial in maintaining a robust defence of constitutional values.
Among the prominent voices in the opposition, Mahua Moitra, an MP from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), has emerged as a persistent critic of the ruling party’s constitutional strategies. Her arguments focus on the defence of constitutional rights, emphasising the need to protect individual freedoms from state encroachment. She has cautioned against constitutional amendments proposed by the ruling party that could undermine democratic principles. By invoking the legacy of the Constituent Assembly and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, she underscored the importance of a democratic framework rooted in justice, equality, and fraternity. Moreover, she highlighted concerns over minority rights, urging the government to honour India’s secular fabric and ensure the protection of marginalised communities. Moitra’s advocacy is also a rallying cry for citizens to actively engage in the political process, reinforcing the collective responsibility to defend constitutional values.
Similarly, K. Kavitha, an MP from Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), passionately argued for stronger legal protections for women, highlighting the critical need for gender equality in governance. She raised concerns about the growing centralisation of power, advocated for preserving state autonomy, and empowered local governance. In her speeches, she also called for inclusive policies that respected the rights of India’s diverse communities, underlining the importance of safeguarding minority rights. Kavitha’s vision of unity and integrity focused on fostering political collaboration to uphold the constitutional framework. Her critique of legislative processes reflected concerns about transparency and the erosion of due process in governance, calling for greater accountability.
Another important voice in the opposition was Ziyaur Rahman Barq, an MP from Samajwadi Party. Barq was vocal in addressing concerns about the current administration’s approach to constitutional governance, with his critiques centred on inclusivity and equal rights. He raised alarms over policies that appeared to marginalise certain communities, stressing the necessity of combating discrimination to uphold constitutional ideals.
Barq strongly advocated for the protection of secularism, warning against actions that could disrupt communal harmony. He connected constitutional debates to socioeconomic justice, arguing that economic disparities faced by minority communities needed to be addressed to fulfil the Constitution’s promises. Frequently referencing historical injustices, Barq illustrated the urgency of safeguarding the rights of all communities and called for vigilance against attempts to erode constitutional protections, urging collective resistance.
These voices collectively represent a determined effort among opposition leaders to defend the Constitution against perceived threats and advocate for a governance model prioritising inclusivity and justice. As tensions escalate within Parliament over constitutional interpretations and amendments, the strategies articulated by Moitra, Kavitha, and Barq underscore the urgent need to reassess the course of India’s constitutional democracy. Their arguments call for a careful and thoughtful approach to navigating the challenges facing the nation, reinforcing the fundamental principles of justice, equality, and pluralism.
VII. Upholding Constitutional Values
The debate over the Constitution illustrates deep tensions between tradition and modernity, state power and individual rights, and central control versus federalism. As custodians of the Constitution, citizens must engage in democratic processes, remain vigilant in protecting rights, and commit to the values of justice, equality, and pluralism enshrined in the Constitution.
The path forward requires united effort and steadfast commitment to upholding the principles that underpin India’s richly diverse society. Protecting the Constitution’s integrity is paramount to securing the nation’s democratic future.
[The writer is Assistant Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind]