`When we talk of a review, we mean review of the Constitution’

But what is wrong with the Constitution?
I think amending the Constitution is a far more serious proposition than reviewing its working. The mistake people make is that amending the statute 79 times is no wrong. So amendment is all right but review is bad. Secondly, a large number of constitutional reforms can be brought about without changing a word in the text on the Constitution. Third, the Constitution is not text. But a living, dynamic process. So when we talk of a review, we mean review of its working.

So you will not review the text but the working…
We will have to review why its working has failed the Constitution makers. Why we have so much population, poverty, illiteracy.. and what not. Nehru had said that it would be the worst piece of paper if it failed to provide food and cloth to the poor. Ambedkar said political democracy without economic and social one is meaningless.

You are talking about directive principles which were not implemented…
I am talking of the whole Constitution.

But if you are dealing with population or poverty, do you require such a panel?
We have to go back to conceptual clarifications. If we limit our concept to the text, it will be one scenario. But if we look into the dynamics of the process, it will be different. (It will make a difference to) what a policeman is doing on the road or a babu taking the bribe because they all work under the Constitution.

You mean all this will be part of the review panel?
I do not know what the Commission will talk about.

But what is your idea?
I have felt that objectives of the statute, dreams of the founding fathers, the basic objectives have not been achieved…

By this Constitution?
Call it the Constitution or the way it has worked during the past 50 years.

But then this is what the President has said. It is not the Constitution but the men.
I entirely agree with the President.

I am sorry. You were pleading for its review as you must have found something seriously wrong?
The difficulty is when I say the Constitution, I include its working in it. When you say, you think of the text. Am I right?

But the popular perception is that you want to amend the text?
For concepts you don’t form such a panel… I do not agree with the popular perception. When legislature amends it, judiciary interprets it, it affects the statute. The PILs, the judicial appointments, the bureaucratic functioning, everything affects me. There is something wrong in the scheme under which we are living. There may be nothing wrong in the text. We are trying to find the reasons for the ills with an open mind. Only then the solution will come.

Please tell us what is wrong in the statute as you have been pleading for it for ten years?
There are many problems in the basic system. Electoral, representational, Union-State relations, Artcile 356, instability of governments, criminalisation of politics, corruption and what not.

There is a perception that the Lok Sabha should have a fixed tenure irrespective of majority…
Whatever problems are raised before the Commission or citizens, they will be considered. No member can set the agenda for the Commission.

Will you consider this or not?
If the terms of reference are what I have read in the paper then this is one area which the panel will consider.

Terms say that the panel will not review the basic structure of the Constitution. What is the basic structure?
I cannot answer this question because the apex court has not been able to answer this question till date. There is not a single judgement which defines the basic structure. Some examples have been given. But no verdict, no agreed list.

How has the government then said that the basic structure will not be touched?
They may be talking about basic features such as parliamentary form of government.

But the government has been changing its stance. It said no politicians in the panel. Now you have them.
Well. I can’t comment on it. It is for the government to say whether it has changed or not.

But what will be your priority?
I have my views. But it will not be fair for me to emphasise on my personal view. We try to build a consensus. For example, election laws. None will disagree. They are Constitutional reforms. Once you change, it can change the working of the statute.

The Panel now has politicians. Political parties do not follow any discipline…

Political system is the product of the Constitution. For example, if a law is brought to regulate political parties, can things not change?
There is need to change their functioning. You are saying the political parties should have done it themselves. They don’t do it because there is no law to govern them. What is the remedy? Somebody must examine it. Somebody should see what is to be done to political parties.

Political parties are governing but there is no to govern them…
At present, there is no law. Not even under the societies act. Even the EC registers them for allocating symbols.

So ours is a unique country…
No (laughs). We have no such monopoly. You are trying to take me to the areas I want to avoid. We do not have two-party system. We have 600 parties and there is no law for them.

But let me tell you this is not the single issue. It has become fashionable to blame the politician for all ills. We will examine issues in totality.

P A Sangma says he will take up the issue of foreign origin…
We should find ways to resolve controversies.