Essay on Indian Constitution Needs Overhauling

As man grows old he believes in status quo. He believes that was done or said by great men in the past is the last word. This is true of the politicians and socio-political workers too.

As the independence took shape under the guidance of the great men of the times-Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others, Congressmen still think that what was correct. Some of them consider it their duty to discard the opinions of those who speak even a single word against the makers of the Indian Constitution. They just forget that the Constitution is for the nation—not the nation for the constitution. It was framed looking to the conditions that prevailed in the fifties.

Since then there have been a lot of changes in the living conditions of the people, the caste and religion equations, the social, political and economic development. This all requires a survey of the constitution too.

At present even the survey of the constitution is being opposed by the oldest political party of the country. It may rather look strange that the move to change the constitution into a Presidential form was made by Sathe, a confidant of Indira Gandhi when she was the Prime Minister of India. It was most probably to make her the first President. It did not materialize.

Now when the new government wants a survey of the Constitution most of the parties have opposed it. Basically there are two issues—if the constitution should be changed to have a Presidential form of government in place of the Parliamentary one.

As the constitution makers were under the influence of the Britishers they accepted the Cabinet form that was prevalent in England. The King or the Queen of England was only de-jure head of the government while the real executive powers lay in the hands of the Prime Minister. So is true with India. The President of India is the de-jure head of the state. But all the executive powers are enjoyed by the Prime Minister who is the de-facto head of the executive.

But the Prime Minister has to resign or is removed as soon as he loses majority in the Parliament. Thus the stability of the government is lost as it happened during 1996-98 when three governments were formed within two years. Ultimately the Parliament was dissolved and there were elections. Even after that no party got majority and a coalition government was formed. The Prime Minister has to waste much energy in pleasing the coalition partners. On the other hand if the Prime Minister advises the President to dissolve the Parliament and have fresh elections it is a great pressure on the exchequer of a poor country like India.

The Presidential form gives stability to the government for four or five years as the President is not responsible to the Parliament. It is said that in the Presidential form the President becomes dictatorial. This is true only in backward small countries where the country was formerly ruled by military Junta or a dictator. It is not possible in well-developed democratic countries. It never happened in the USA and is not expected in a semi- developed democracy like India. Otherwise too even a Prime Minister may become dictatorial as Indira Gandhi became in 1975-77.

The other change that may be proposed is about Federal or Unitary form. Although in the beginning a unitary form was suggested by many. A federal structure based on languages was preferred. There was a great pressure from linguistic states. The constitution makers were rather obliged to form a federal type of government. Now it has become a reality and can hardly be altered.

Besides these two there are certain pressing needs that should find place in the Constitution. As Kuldip Nayar says the Constitution is not sacrosanct and has already been amended more than 76 times.

According to Justice Sarkaria there should be a permanent commission to keep the constitution up-to-date. Even at present an overhauling of the constitution is necessary to introduce some of the pressing needs of the time. Some of them are the problem of conversions among ten crore tribals, the formation of a two-party system, stopping the entry of mafias and criminal elements in the legislatures.

The survey should look into the question of recall of legislators by the voters, the necessity or uselessness of the upper house. The election of governors, Supreme Court Judges and Chief Justices, the direct election of the Prime Minister and the appointment of ministers from the experts in the fields concerned in the country even if they are not M.Ps. Decentralization of power is another issue together with full autonomy to states. A screening of section 356 and 370 too is necessary. The policy of reservation requires a rethinking as also the formation of political parties based on religions and castes, denationalization of all sectors and the elimination of the concept of majoritysm and minoritysm. Last but not the least is the provision of a national language that has not been decided since independence.