It took 299 members of the Constituent Assembly to put their best endeavour for over two years and 293 days to give us this Constitution which is the world’s largest written one with 448 articles and 12 schedules. So far, the document has guided us successfully in all walks of national life and ensured a governance of certainty and harmony irrespective of changes of regimes from time to time and occasions of political uncertainties. Our Constitution is a masterpiece of foresight that has successfully catered to the aspirations of a nation as diverse as “India that is Bharat”. Its making involved the hard work of political stalwarts of the time like BR Ambedkar (Chairman of Drafting Committee), Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, KM Munshi, advisor of drafting committee BN Rau, chief draftsman SN Mukherjee, etc.

However, of late with the changing aspirations, choices and preferences of the diverse segments of society and a new sense of national awakening, we have suddenly begun to stumble on a few questions like whether the word “socialist” in the Preamble has any relevance in the present context, whether we should call ourselves India or change our name to Bharat, whether the “Basic Structure” is indeed invincible in the present context also.

But there is nothing to worry as unlike the Canadian Constitution which doesn’t allow amendment, our Constitution allows amendments and we have amended it over 106 times since it has come to force. Therefore, question doesn’t arise that we are going to junk our constitution at all. Our Constitutional history, the Constituent Assembly debates are awe-inspiring and it cannot be junked like this. But yes, we can always debate on what needs to be amended.

It is true that as we grow, as we proceed in time, as generations change, we need to make necessary changes to the Constitution and it cannot remain exactly same as decided many years back by its framers. Dr Ambedkar too agreed that no generation can impose its will on the future generations. According to him, he was not “putting a seal of finality and infallibility upon this Constitution”. Ambedkar was in essence invoking American statesman of repute Thomas Jefferson, who said, “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation.”

So, any attempt to study the functioning of the Constitution by the government shouldn’t be seen as an attempt to junk or do away with the Constitution. In the past too in February 2000, the NDA Government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee constituted ‘The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC)’, also known as Justice MN Venkatachaliah commission to look into the functioning of the Constitution. As then, the government of the day was contemplating a fixed tenure for Parliament and other legislatures, doing away with the no-confidence motion and to bring in a “constructive vote of confidence”. After three extensions, the commission finally submitted its 1,979-page report in two volumes on March 31, 2002; however, the report has not been accepted by the successive governments. 

As we have celebrated the 74th Republic Day this year, it is obvious that “We, the people of India” need a thorough appraisal of the functioning of the Constitution.

There are aspects of the Constitution which need a clear explanation. For example, Article 1 calls India a “Union of States”, but nowhere has it been described as a nation, which is why some argue that it is only a “Union of States”; this argument sort of steals its soul. And vested interest groups get a leeway to oppose stuffs on national agenda with a stronger federal autonomy chorus than originally-envisaged or enshrined in the Constitution itself.

Interestingly, Ambedkar himself was quite particular about the fact that the “federal” character of the Constitution was confined to Legislative and Executive autonomy of the Union and the States and it was nowhere even contemplated to have two equal power centres and that is why the framers of the Constitution have refrained from using the word “federal”. 

Calling any Constitution in the world infallible is perhaps the greatest fallacy to be asserted. As a nation grows with time in all dimensions of its national life, both ‘the need of the nation’ and its ‘conscience’, pursue it to seek change through Constitutional amendments and somewhere its peaceful, somewhere it needs bit more persuasion like a revolution or campaign, etc. For example, the US Constitution came into force in1789, but it took Black Americans almost 175 years to get full civil rights and the most powerful nation in the world is run with just seven articles and 27 amendments in 230 years.

What is the Constitution after all? It is a crucial document of self-governance, which carries the scheme to run the country and the intent behind it. And there is certainly no problem in amending it if we do it judiciously by diligently and cautiously ascertaining the need of the nation and prudently balancing the concerns of the majority and minority which includes their proportionate interests in the national life. But by any chance, any speculation to the junk the Constitution now is just a misinformed aberration.

(The writer is an Advocate, Orissa High Court, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, CAT, Cuttack Bench, Consulting Editor-Legal Affairs and Public Policy, The Pioneer, Bhubaneswar and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law and Media Studies, School of Mass Communication, KIIT University. Views are personal)