This Quote Means: ‘Constitution is not a mere lawyers’ document… its spirit is always the spirit of Age’

What was the Constituent Assembly?

The Constituent Assembly, the body meant to draft the Constitution of India, held its first session on December 9, 1946. Initially, it had 389 members: (i) 292 members were elected through the Provincial Legislative Assemblies; (ii) 93 members represented the Indian Princely States; and (iii) 4 members represented the Chief Commissioners’ Provinces (British Baluchistan, Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands).

Members were chosen by indirect election by the members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies elected through the 1946 elections, according to the scheme recommended by the Cabinet Mission of 1946.

However, after independence and the partition of India, the strength was reduced to 299. The assembly took over three years to draft the constitution, spending over 114 days considering the content of the draft alone.

What was debated as part of the Constitutional debates?

Fundamental issues such as the language of business for the Indian government, citizenship, and the name of the country itself were debated.

The Drafting Committee chaired by Ambedkar was one among the over 17 committees of the Constituent Assembly. Out of some 7,600 amendments tabled, this committee got rid of about 2,400 amendments while debating and deliberating the Constitution.

The Constitution as a living document, what was argued

As the Drafting Committee’s head, Ambedkar was crucial to the debates taking place, arguing for ideas that may have been missed or helping members see other perspectives to reach a common conclusion.

When it came to the nature of the Constitution and how amendments to it would be made in the future, there was a debate, too.

PS Deshmukh, who would go on to become the first Union Minister of Agriculture, said in one such discussion that making it difficult to amend provisions of the Constitution was not advisable.

He said, “If we do not make it easy for amendments to be affected the whole administration will suffer… if you do not provide outlets it might lead to, the whole, Constitution being rejected or not being accepted by future Parliaments and their resorting to something much more drastic and radical.”

The idea was that having amendments require a significant percentage of votes, say two-thirds, would make the Constitution a document not in sync with the times, and build a perception among the people that it is obsolete and not worth adhering to. But Ambedkar argued that making all amendments easily movable would make the document susceptible to changes on the whims of legislators and be against the interests of states.

What Ambedkar argued

Ambedkar gave examples of procedures for amendments in the Irish, Canadian, Australian and other constitutions to make a point about how there was no one way of making amendments. But, there was a common thread. “I cite these facts in order to point out that in no country to which I have made reference it is provided that the Constitution should be amended by a simple majority,” he said.

In India’s case, he suggested three options from the committee – a set of Articles that can be amended by a simple parliamentary majority (what is called a simple majority), another set requiring a two-thirds majority (what is a special majority), and a few more that required a two-thirds majority and ratification by half of all states. This would depend on whether the Articles related to matters of the Centre or both the states and the Centre.

“Supposing, for instance, the Parliament has the power to make an alteration in article 60 for extending its executive authority beyond the provisions or the limit contained in article 60, it would undoubtedly undermine or limit the executive authority of the States… we therefore thought that that also was a fundamental matter and ought to require the ratification of the States,” he said.

He added, “The purpose of a Constitution is not merely to create the organs of the State but to limit their authority, because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression. The legislature may be free to frame any law; the executive may be free to take any decision; and the Supreme Court may be free to give any interpretation of the law. It would result in utter chaos.”