Latest news with #DirectivePrinciples
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
How different constitutional drafts imagined India
India's path to becoming a republic was paved with a range of constitutional visions articulated by diverse political thinkers and movements before the adoption of the 1950 Constitution. Between 1895 and 1948, various drafts were proposed reflecting contrasting ideologies — from early liberalism to Gandhian decentralism to radical socialism. These five key constitutional drafts that preceded the final Constitution offer insights into differing interpretations of sovereignty, governance, economic justice, and cultural identity. Early constitutional visions The Constitution of India Bill, 1895, attributed anonymously but often linked to early nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, was one of the earliest efforts to frame a constitution for self-rule within the British Empire. Containing 110 articles, this draft proposed representative government, individual rights, legal equality, and a clear separation of powers. It emphasised civil liberties such as freedom of speech, the right to property, and equality before the law, setting forth a legalistic and liberal vision inspired by British constitutional models. It was more an aspiration for dominion status than a call for complete independence. In contrast, M.N. Roy's Constitution of Free India: A Draft (1944), created under the Radical Democratic Party, was grounded in the philosophy of radical humanism and advocated a participatory form of democracy. Roy envisioned a federal India composed of linguistically organised provinces and promoted popular sovereignty as the bedrock of governance. His draft introduced the right to revolt as a safeguard against tyranny and featured a robust Bill of Rights encompassing civil and socio-economic guarantees. Citizens' committees were proposed to ensure grassroots participation, making Roy's vision strikingly ahead of its time in its emphasis on decentralisation, transparency, and social accountability. This document went well beyond traditional liberalism, promoting direct democratic control and economic equity. A distinctive feature of Roy's draft was its rejection of parliamentary sovereignty in favour of a constitutionally entrenched republic where citizens, not legislators, were the ultimate locus of power. Roy's insistence on institutionalising political education, through mechanisms such as citizens' committees, highlighted his commitment to transforming subjects into active citizens. The draft was also unique in its clarity and precision: the Preamble defined the republic as a 'free, secular, federal, and democratic' polity, and the structure of government envisioned checks against bureaucratic centralism through provincial autonomy and public participation. Importantly, Roy's draft placed economic and social rights on equal footing with civil liberties — anticipating the eventual Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles split in the 1950 Constitution. Yet unlike the non-justiciable nature of the Directive Principles, Roy's socio-economic rights were enforceable and binding. Homogenous yet secular The Constitution of the Hindusthan Free State Act (1944), associated with nationalist right-wing circles such as the Hindu Mahasabha, presented a sharply contrasting perspective. It proposed a unitary state structure and declared India a sovereign 'Hindusthan Free State,' emphasising cultural unification through one language, one law, and one national culture. Yet, contrary to prevailing assumptions, the draft did explicitly guarantee religious freedom and equal treatment across castes and creeds. It affirmed freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order and morality. It barred the State from endowing any religion or discriminating based on religious belief. The draft also explicitly rejected any state religion for the Hindusthan Free State or its provinces and prohibited the use of public funds for sectarian purposes. These provisions underscore a commitment to formal secularism and non-discrimination in public employment and education, despite the document's culturally homogenising tone and emphasis on national unity. The juxtaposition of these liberal guarantees with an overarching nationalist framework reflects the tensions within the ideological thrust of the draft. In addition, the 1944 draft was one of the few to contain an explicit reference to the right of secession, stating that provinces could opt out of the Union under certain conditions — an unusual feature given its otherwise unitary orientation. It also mandated the state to promote 'moral and spiritual values,' thus embedding a civilisational mission into its constitutional logic. Its provisions for emergency powers and the duties of citizens echoed a strong state-centric ethos, while still including democratic processes such as direct election to the legislature and regular judicial review. Decentralism to socialist democracy On a very different note, the Gandhian Constitution for Free India, drafted in 1946 by Shriman Narayan Agarwal with a foreword by Mahatma Gandhi, sought to ground India's constitutional framework in indigenous traditions and moral values. This draft was built upon Gandhi's principles of non-violence, trusteeship, and rural self-sufficiency. It proposed a confederation of self-sustaining village republics (gram swaraj) as the basic unit of governance. Rejecting both industrial capitalism and Western legalism, the Gandhian model envisioned decentralised, minimalist governance led by ethical self-regulation rather than law enforcement. With its strong focus on khadi, agriculture, and cottage industries, it aimed to create a self-reliant, spiritually grounded republic, though critics found it impractical for governing a complex modern state. Strikingly, however, the draft included a provision for the right to bear arms — a somewhat ironic inclusion in a constitution guided by Gandhian non-violence. Article 6 of the draft proclaimed that 'every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Legislature,' revealing a pragmatic concession to the need for self-defence or resistance, even within a pacifist framework. This dissonance between the ideal of ahimsa and the constitutional recognition of arms underscores the tensions inherent in attempting to reconcile ethical philosophy with the imperatives of statecraft. By 1948, the Socialist Party, under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, offered its Draft Constitution of the Republic of India as a counter-proposal to the official draft prepared by the Constituent Assembly. This document was firmly rooted in Marxist and democratic socialist thought, advocating the nationalisation of all major industries, banks, and key services. It called for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and proposed land reforms and workers' control over factories. This socialist draft envisioned a unicameral legislature composed of representatives from key social groups —workers, peasants, and intellectuals — thus rejecting the traditional liberal representative model in favour of a class-based system. It went further to assert that all land and natural resources were national property, and that planning would be conducted by a Central Planning Commission accountable to the legislature. Strikingly, the draft also offered an early commitment to gender equality and prohibited caste discrimination in any form. Civil liberties were acknowledged, but the document prioritised economic democracy, with socio-economic rights taking precedence over procedural safeguards. While it was bold in its redistributive commitments, the draft was less detailed in its administrative and judicial architecture, assuming that radical economic transformation would organically support political democracy. Comparative analysis When viewed comparatively, these drafts reflect divergent paths for India's future republic. The 1895 Bill and Roy's draft both championed democracy, but Roy's version expanded it through mechanisms like the right to revolt and participatory governance, departing significantly from the legalistic, elite-centred liberalism of the earlier proposal. Centralisation versus decentralisation is another crucial axis of comparison. While the Hindusthan Free State Act and the Socialist Party draft leaned towards a strong centralised authority to preserve national unity or effect economic restructuring, Roy's and the Gandhian drafts were deeply committed to decentralised governance, albeit in different ways — Roy through institutional federalism and democratic oversight, and Gandhi through autonomous village self-rule grounded in moral authority. Economically, the spectrum ranged from the minimalist and agrarian Gandhian model, to Roy's emphasis on democratic economic planning, to the Socialist Party's full-fledged state socialism. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while largely silent on economic redistribution, offered a more complex picture than often presumed — it prioritised national cohesion but enshrined specific liberal protections around religious freedom and equality. Meanwhile, the 1895 Bill reflected an absence of economic radicalism, concerned primarily with civil liberties and political representation. Cultural and identity politics also played out markedly differently. The Hindusthan Free State draft projected a homogenised, majoritarian cultural identity, in contrast to the pluralistic and secular ethos implicit in Roy's draft and the Socialist Party's vision. The Gandhian model, while rooted in Indian traditions, emphasised unity through moral and communal harmony rather than cultural uniformity. On civil liberties, the 1895 Bill and Roy's draft were strongest, both incorporating detailed rights frameworks. The Socialist Party draft prioritised economic rights over political ones, whereas the Gandhian draft focused more on duties and community values than on formal rights. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while ideologically nationalist, nevertheless provided robust constitutional guarantees for religious freedom and non-discrimination, challenging the assumption that it was devoid of liberal principles. In all, these constitutional drafts capture a vibrant pre-independence debate on the nature of the Indian state, reflecting ideological diversity and differing assumptions about governance, society, and citizenship. Though none of these drafts were adopted wholesale, elements from each filtered into the 1950 Constitution. Roy's ideas on decentralisation and rights, the Gandhian notion of panchayati raj, the Socialist commitment to economic justice, and even the legalistic structure of the 1895 Bill all left their mark. Their greatest contribution, however, may lie in showcasing the democratic imagination at play even before the republic was born — a testament to India's rich constitutional legacy and the multitude of futures it once contemplated.
India Today
16-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Socialist-secular debate: ‘Dattatreya Hosabale seeks regression, not reform'
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)On June 26, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said the quiet part out loud. He wanted a discussion on whether the words 'secular' and 'socialist' 'should remain' in the Constitution's Preamble. He said Ambedkar never used these words and argued that they were smuggled in during the Emergency. The 50th anniversary of the Emergency was seemingly a good occasion to discuss deleting them does not seek reform; what he wants is a regression. The Constitution is not an la carte menu. You cannot pick what you like and discard the rest. The Preamble reflects our national purpose. To alter its core is not debate. It is the 42nd Amendment added those words in 1976. But the idea behind them was always there. Secularism and Socialism flow through the Constitution like groundwater. You won't find secularism on every page. But dig, and it's there. Article 14 promises equality before law. Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. Articles 27 and 28 keep religion out of state institutions. Articles 29 and 30 protect cultural and educational rights of minorities. None of these need the word 'secular' to work. But the word ties them together conceptually. Secularism in India is not about hostility to religion. It means the state keeps an equal distance from all religions. It does not bow before temple, mosque or church. It protects belief. And the right not to believe. That's not alien. That's constitutional. Socialism, too, is not an alien transplant. It means social justice. It means the state must look after the weak. It means wealth cannot be the only source of power. Ambedkar didn't oppose the idea. He only warned against locking in an economic model. But the Directive Principles say enough: reduce inequality, ensure fair wages, protect the dignity of labour. These are socialist values, Indian in says the amendment came during dark times. True. But a bad moment doesn't make every act bad. Courts didn't strike down that part of the amendment. Even the Janata government, which reversed much of the Emergency's excesses, retained those words, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, as important ministers in that government, raised no objection to the continuation of those Supreme Court has settled this. In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), secularism was enumerated among the Constitution's basic features. In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the court said secularism is part of the Constitution's basic features. These are not footnotes. These are judgments of large constitution cannot amend the basic structure. You cannot touch the foundation without breaking the house. Parliament is powerful, but not absolute. Hosabale's demand is not about semantics. It is about reshaping the state. It is about shifting India from a secular republic to a majoritarian democracy. That's not just a constitutional problem. It's a national is not one colour, one language, one faith. It is a complex, layered society. Secularism is how we manage that diversity. Not by denial. But by respect and neutrality. You don't need the word 'secular' to act secular. But once you drop the word, you make space for its opposite. That is the risk. Words matter. That's why the RSS wants to drop them. To clear the path for something else. They want a Hindu Rashtra, not a secular republic. Let us not pretend otherwise. This is not about constitutional clarity. It's about political ambition. The Preamble is not a draft. It is a declaration. It says who we are. It says what we aspire to be. We may not always live up to it. But we do not give up on it or allow our national covenant to be rewritten by those who never believed in its words to begin with.—The author is a senior advocate at the Supreme CourtadvertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
12-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Ensure justice reaches the last and most needy citizen: CJI Gavai
Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai called upon the three branches of the government — Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, the academia and all stakeholders to strive to achieve the goal of the Constitution, which is to 'economic, social and political justice, and ensure justice reaches the last and the most needy citizen in the country'. While delivering a lecture here at Tagore Auditorium, Osmania University, on 'Constitution of India: The contribution of Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar', on Saturday, Justice Gavai recollected the journey, insights and the foresight that shaped the Constitution. In his concise 15-minute lecture, he explained Dr. Ambedkar's philosophy about the Constitution, its strength in keeping the country united in times of war and peace, Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) as the most important article, Directive Principles of the Constitution as the soul, the initial conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights, constitutional mechanism, and the criticism it drew. He cited the First Amendment and Tamil Nadu's reservation policy, the Supreme Court's landmark case heard by a 13-judge Bench in 1973 on the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, and State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas of 1976 on reservation policies in public employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Confessing paucity of time, he, however, said he wishes to return to the university after November to talk about the Constitution in greater detail. Supreme Court Judge Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Advocate General (Telangana) A. Sudarshan Reddy, both hailing from Hyderabad and alumni of Osmania University, expressed happiness about the lecture. They recollected Dr. Ambedkar's connection to Osmania University and Hyderabad in the anti-caste movement, and then Nizam's admiration and offer to him to be the Chief Justice of Hyderabad. Chief Justice of Telangana High Court Sujoy Paul, OU Vice-Chancellor Kumar Molugaram, leaders, senior officials of the Bar Council, vice chancellors of various universities, and others were present. Special postal cover Justice Gavai unveiled a special postal cover titled 'Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar – Constituent Assembly – Constitution of India' along with a set of picture postcards on 'Art and Calligraphy in the Constitution of India'. The cover and postcards were officially handed over to the Chief Justice by P.V.S. Reddy, Chief Postmaster General of Telangana. Designed as a tribute to Ambedkar's role in framing the Constitution of India, the cover offers a vivid visual and textual narrative of his life, contributions to the Constituent Assembly, and the legacy he left behind.
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
CJI Gavai says three arms of democracy fulfilled responsibilities as desired by Ambedkar
The three arms of democracy — the executive, legislature and judiciary — have been able to fulfil their responsibilities at the completion of 75 years of the Constitution as desired by BR Ambedkar, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said Tuesday. Speaking on Indian Constitution at the Central Hall of the Maharashtra Legislature after he was felicitated for becoming the 52nd Chief Justice of India, Justice Gavai said: 'When the country is heading for the centenary of the Constitution, the three arms have also been successful in ensuring social and economic justice and equality. It also ensured social-economic and social-political democracy.' 'I feel lucky to be the Chief Justice when the Indian Constitution has completed 75 years in April this year and heading for its centenary. I will be able to contribute my share in this journey… During my career I have always tried to strike a balance between the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights described in the Indian Constitution,' he said. Remembering his father the late RS Gavai, who was the chairperson of legislative council and former governor of Bihar, Kerala and Tripura, the CJI said that he treats the felicitation by the Maharashtra Legislature as blessings of 12.87 crore people of the state. Gavai said that the Constitution is a weapon for bloodless revolution in the country and it has been witnessed during the several judgements given by the Supreme Court while upholding or dismissing the various enactments made by the states. Adding that Ambedkar opposed the federal and state Constitution on the lines of United States of America (USA) and made a strong pitch for one Constitution, which has helped the country remain united, the CJI said: 'Babasaheb Ambedkar was criticised by some for the Constitution being too centralised and by some it provides too much of federalism. Babasaheb had replied to that criticism by saying the Constitution is not centric nor federal. We are giving the country a Constitution suitable for all challenges, and I can assure you that it will keep the country united in times of war and peace.' Referring to Babasaheb Ambedkar's argument that the Constitution cannot be static but should be organic and evolving to suit the needs of future generations, Gavai said that even for an amendment, it requires two-third majority and approval from 50 per cent of the state legislatures. 'Due to the Constitution, in India two women became President of India, members of the Scheduled Caste assumed the post of President of India and the Vice-President of India. In several states, women are assuming the posts of the chief secretary and the director general of police,' he said.
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Constitution Alone is Supreme, Not Parliament, Executive, or Judiciary: CJI Gavai
Nagpur: Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai on Wednesday offered a deeply personal, emotional, and reflective address in Amravati, recounting his journey from modest beginnings to the country's highest judicial office. "Neither parliament, nor the executive, nor the judiciary is supreme. The Constitution of India alone is supreme, and the judges of higher judiciary are its custodians," he said, reiterating his judicial philosophy grounded in constitutional values, while replying to a grand felicitation by the Amravati District Bar Association, at Swami Vivekanand Auditorium on Wednesday evening. Justice Gavai spoke of the heavy responsibility that judges bear, reminding that, "A judge can never be guided by what people feel about his judgment. He is expected to decide according to the Constitution, the law, and his conscience." Emphasising the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, he added, "In every decision, I have tried to uphold the values of social justice, equality, fraternity, and constitutional morality. " Reflecting on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the zudpi jungle issue of Vidarbha, Gavai called it a matter of shelter and livelihood rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Describing his early life, Gavai recalled growing up in a small home with 10-15 family members and how his mother and aunts managed household duties under difficult circumstances. "My grandparents, my mother, my father — they all shaped my understanding of people's problems," he said, adding that he never initially intended to pursue law, having aspired to become an architect. He credited his father, late RS Gavai — former Governor of Bihar and Kerala, and a staunch Ambedkarite — for influencing his decision to enter the legal profession. "When my father was taking his LLB exams, he went to jail over a satyagraha, and could never give the exam. He then dedicated his life to public service. It was he who insisted I become a lawyer," Gavai recalled. He acknowledged the early struggles of his legal career. "I wasn't sure if I would succeed. Many seniors and others stood by me when I needed them the most," he said. He narrated how, when offered judgeship in 2001, he wrestled with the decision for nearly two years. "My father told me, if you become a Supreme Court lawyer, you may earn bounty. But if you become a judge, you can help realise Dr Ambedkar's dream of equality. I'm glad I listened to him." The CJI expressed heartfelt gratitude to his extended family, acknowledging their unwavering support. He thanked his wife and recalled how tough judicial life can be despite the appearance of ease. "People see the red light car, not the 15–16 hours of daily work. A judge must stay true to the Constitution and never be swayed," he said.
