As the Indian republic trundles into its 72nd year, one is amazed by the enduring continuity of the basic structure doctrine coined by the Supreme Court in the year 1973. Concepts like democracy, universal suffrage, ideals like federalism and secularism, salience of separation of powers, free and fair elections and independence of judiciary have come to stay and struck deep roots.
However, there are two areas where there are rumblings, like scrapping socialism from the script of the preamble and supplanting the Parliamentary form with the more dynamic Presidential form of Government of the USA.
The choice of Parliamentary system was largely because of India’s familiarity with UK Parliamentary system and operationalisation of Government of India Act, 1935. However, there were prominent detractors like Dr BR Ambedkar who was more in favour of Presidential form of Government.
Gandhiji, on the other hand, wished for a system based on village panchayats rather than copy the British. He wrote, “If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined”.
Ambedkar was very critical of the proposed Panchayati Raj system as he believed that it will add fuel to the fire of upper caste domination of political power.
However, it was Pandit Nehru who tilted the balance for adopting Parliamentary system. KM Munshi, a revered member of the constitutional assembly also wrote, “If I was to make a choice again, I would vote for the Presidential form of Government, so that when the politicians fail the country, at least one organ of the State is capable of tiding over the crises. Much later, R Venkat Raman, as President, had expressed grave doubts regarding the future of Parliamentary democracy.
He was alluding to the emergency years (1975-77) when there was a mockery of collective responsibility as the President was made to sign an order without the approval of the Cabinet.
As Granville Austin, the celebrated jurist observed, “Repression was piled upon repression and light seem to have gone out of India’s constitution.”
The suggestion for a Presidential form hinges on four pillars. Firstly, it enables the President to have a cabinet of outstanding professional competence and merit without the choice being restricted to the elected Member of Parliaments (MPs). Secondly, since the cabinet members are not elected, they would not be motivated to adopt chief populist measures. Thirdly, it permits cabinet ministers to be more involved in the job of governing the country instead of endless politicking. Finally, it would discourage defection, and horse trading, which has become a vexatious issue in the event of hung Assembly or Parliament.
After nearly 30 years of economic globalisation there is an all pervading feeling that slogans like ‘Garibi Hatao’ and ‘Sab Ke Saath Sab ke Vikas’ rest on shallow sand. The biggest casualty has been poor delivery mechanism of basic services like quality primary education, affordable healthcare, proper sanitation and lack of accountability of the Government. Malnutrition amongst children is rampant (43%) as per RSOC Survey 2014. Nearly half of the adolescent girl who will become future mothers are anaemic. This is a major cause of high maternal mortality rates of 174 per lakh as against a target of 80 by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The national nutrition mission to eliminate hunger, stunting, and wasting amongst children has largely failed. Income inequality has been on the increase, due to public policy which promotes crony capitalism.
In contrast, under the Presidential form of Government of Franklin D Roosevelt, he ensured that USA comes out of the quagmire of economic depression through massive investment programme, called the ‘New Deal’. America which was languishing with around 28% unemployment in 1929 had achieved full employment and ensured through a slew of social protection measures like right to food, health and social security, that the country cares for its unemployed. America became the global hegemon by the end of the Second World War. Similarly, President Johnson inked the great society programme in the 1960s which has helped in reducing racial injustice and poverty significantly. President Roosevelt had the benefit of having as his cabinet reputed corporate leaders like Nelson Rockefeller who were called ‘one dollar men’ in his cabinet.
It is apprehended that any move to convert India to a Presidential form of Government will offend the basic structure doctrine. This is a debatable issue. There is no permanence to the constitution and it has to evolve over time as Thomas Jefferson, the architect of the US constitution, had once observed, “No one generation can bind another. The creator has to make the earth for the living and not for the dead.”
It’s therefore time to put an alternative system in place which is based on merit over mediocrity, pragmatism over procedure and accountability over glib promise. The time to debate presidential form of Government has come.
The other issue which has been attracting attention is a private member bill tabled by KJ Alfons who was previously a minister in the Modi Government to replace the word socialism in the preamble of Indian constitution with the word equitable, as socialism carries the political connotation of erstwhile USSR socialist era.
Besides, Chief Justice Pankaj Mittal of J&K High Court in an address in December 2021 to the RSS rally had observed that socialism and secularism in the constitution has narrowed India’s spiritual image. While the diatribe against secularism is ill founded as clarified by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case 1994, socialism as an economic ideology has been abdicated after India’s tryst with market economy since 1991. Here lies the deep dissonance between its Preamble to propitiate socialism and social justice and the pragmatic acceptance of free market dogma which will promote economic efficiency.
Socio economic equity and justice remains an ideal, while distributive justice remains a rhetoric. The Republic is at the crossroads of hope of shared prosperity by the bottom half, who are deprived of quality foundational learning, basic healthcare, digital access and employment , while economic aggrandisement of top 10% marches on unabated.
(Prof Misra teaches Constitution at the KIIT School of Law)