CRITICISM OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India, as framed and adopted by the Constituent Assembly, has been criticized on the following grounds:

Critics argued that the Indian Constitution contains nothing new and original.
Described as a ‘borrowed Constitution’, ‘bag of borrowings’, ‘hotch-potch Constitution’, or a ‘patchwork’ of several world constitutions.
Criticism deemed unfair because the framers modified borrowed features to suit Indian conditions, while avoiding their faults.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar responded:

“One likes to ask whether there can be anything new in a Constitution framed at this hour in the history of the world... All Constitutions in their main provisions must look similar... The only new things are the variations made to remove faults and accommodate to the needs of the country."

Many provisions were directly copied from the Government of India Act, 1935.
Critics called it a “Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act” or “Amended Version of the 1935 Act”.
N. Srinivasan: “Both in language and substance a close copy of the Act of 1935.”
Sir Ivor Jennings: “Many provisions copied almost textually.”
P.R. Deshmukh: “Constitution is essentially the 1935 Act with adult franchise added.”
Dr. Ambedkar defended:

“There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing... Provisions taken relate mostly to the details of administration.”

Constitution does not reflect political traditions or spirit of India.
K. Hanumanthaiya: “We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but got the music of an English band.”
Lokanath Misra: “Slavish imitation of the West, a slavish surrender.”
Lakshminarayan Sahu: “Ideals have no relation to the fundamental spirit of India... It would break down soon after being brought into operation.”

Lacks the philosophy and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi.
Should have been based on village and district panchayats.
K. Hanumanthaiya: “Exactly the kind of Constitution Mahatma Gandhi did not want.”
T. Prakasam attributed this to Ambedkar’s non-participation in Gandhian movement and opposition to Gandhian ideas.

Too bulky and detailed, includes unnecessary elements.
Sir Ivor Jennings: Borrowed provisions were not well-selected, making it long and complicated.
H.V. Kamath:

“Our Constitution is the bulkiest that the world has produced.”
“I am sure, the House does not agree we should make the Constitution an elephantine one.”

Too legalistic and complicated.
Legal language makes it complex and difficult for common people.
Sir Ivor Jennings: “A lawyer’s paradise.”
H.K. Maheswari:

“Draft tends to make people more litigious, less truthful, and less likely to follow truth and non-violence... Opens vast avenues of litigation.”
P.R. Deshmukh:

“Draft seems like a law manual... It should be a socio-political, life-giving document. But we got words, words, and more words.”

Target IAS Kannada