The Indian Constitution, according to critics, is overly long and complex and contains certain extraneous parts. A British Constitutionalist, Sir Ivor Jennings, commented that the provisions borrowed were not always well-selected and that the Constitution was, in general, excessively lengthy and convoluted. It was even debated in the constituent assembly thoroughly considering each article at a time with constructive criticism. The UPSC aspirants must know different grounds on which the Constitution was criticized for writing an analytical answer.

Indian Constitution - Grounds of Criticism

Not a Representative Body

The Constituent Assembly, critics contend, was not a representative assembly since its members were not directly elected by the Indians using the universal adult franchise.

Not a Sovereign Body

• The critics claimed that the Constituent Assembly was not a sovereign body because it was created by the proposals of the British Government. They further claimed that the Assembly met with the authorization of the British government.

Dominated by the Congress

• According to the critics, the Constituent Assembly was dominated by the Congress party.
• Granville Austin, a British Constitutional expert, commented saying “The Constituent Assembly was a one-party body in an essentially one-party country. The Assembly was the Congress and the Congress was India”.

Dominated by the Hindus

• Few critics claimed that the Constituent Assembly was dominated by Hindus.
• Lord Viscount Simon said it is “a body of Hindus”.
• "Only one big community in India", Winston Churchill commented regarding the Constituent Assembly.

A Borrowed Constitution

• Many critics believe that the Indian Constitution contains nothing new and original. Critics described it as a ‘borrowed Constitution’ or a ‘bag of borrowings’ or a ‘hotch-potch Constitution’ or a ‘patchwork’ of several documents of the world constitutions.
• Answering this criticism in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar said that “One likes to ask whether there can be anything new in a Constitution framed at this hour in the history of the world”.

A Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act

• According to critics, the writers of the Constitution incorporated a large number of clauses from the Government of India Act of 1935 into the Indian Constitution. As a result, the Constitution is referred to as a "Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act" or an "Amended Version of the 1935 Act".
• Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist mentioned that “the Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act of 1935 from which many of its provisions are copied almost textually”.

Un-Indian or Anti-Indian

• Another criticism is that the Indian Constitution is ‘un-Indian or ‘anti-Indian’ because it does not reflect the political traditions and the spirit of India.
• They said that the Constitution's foreign nature made it unsuited for Indian conditions or unworkable in India.
• K. Hanumanthaiah, a member of the Constituent Assembly, commented that “We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an English band. That was because our Constitution-makers were educated that way”.

An Un-Gandhian Constitution

• The Indian Constitution, critics claim, is un-Gandhian because it lacks the ideology and principles of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation. They believed that the Constitution should have been based on village and district panchayats.

Elephantine Size

• The Indian Constitution consisted of about 145,000 words and 395 articles at the time of coming into existence. This was the world's longest constitution. Composed between 1947 and 1950.
• The Indian Constitution, according to critics, is overly long and complex and contains certain unnecessary elements. A British Constitutionalist, Sir Ivor Jennings, commented that the provisions borrowed were not always well-selected and that the constitution was, in general, excessively long and complicated.

Paradise of the Lawyers

• The critics felt that the Indian Constitution is too legalistic and very complicated. They claimed that the Constitution's legal terminology and phraseology make it a difficult document to understand.
• Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, called it a “lawyer’s paradise”.
• The critics felt that the Constituent Assembly was dominated by lawyers and politicians. They argued that other aspects of society were not adequately represented. This, they believe, is the primary cause for the Constitution's volume and complication of language.

Conclusion

Many criticisms of the Constitution are unfair and illogical. Despite criticism, Indian Constitution stands firm with strong fundamentals which are responding to the changing needs of society.

FAQs

MCQs

1. Which of the following is a criticism of the Indian Constitution?

A. It is too flexible
B. It is not representative
C. It is solely based on indigenous principles
D. It limits judicial powers

2. Which of the following is borrowed from other constitutions in the Indian Constitution?

A. Directive Principles of State Policy
B. Federalism
C. Parliamentary System
D. All of the above

3. Why is the Indian Constitution referred to as a "lawyer’s paradise"?

A. It is full of legal loopholes
B. It has excessive legal jargon
C. It can be easily amended
D. It is short and simple

4. Who described the Indian Constitution as a "carbon copy" of the 1935 Government of India Act?

A. Mahatma Gandhi
B. Winston Churchill
C. Sir Ivor Jennings
D. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

5. Which political ideology did critics claim was missing from the Indian Constitution?

A. Socialist ideology
B. Gandhian principles
C. Secularism
D. Democratic principles

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Discuss the various criticisms leveled against the Indian Constitution regarding its representative nature.

Answer: The Indian Constitution has been criticized for not being fully representative since the Constituent Assembly was not elected through universal adult franchise. Additionally, it was dominated by Congress party members, leading to a lack of diverse political opinions. However, the Assembly did include members from various regions, communities, and religions, attempting to reflect India’s diversity.

Q2: Analyze the criticisms of the Indian Constitution regarding its 'borrowed' nature.

Answer: Critics labeled the Indian Constitution as "borrowed" because it drew inspiration from multiple foreign constitutions. Provisions like fundamental rights, the parliamentary system, and the directive principles were borrowed from countries like the UK, the USA, and Ireland. However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended this borrowing, arguing that these provisions were well-suited to India’s unique needs and context.

Q3: Examine the criticism that the Indian Constitution is a "lawyer's paradise."

Answer: The Indian Constitution is often called a "lawyer's paradise" due to its complex language and legalistic approach. Critics argue that its interpretation requires legal expertise, making it inaccessible to the common citizen. While this complexity ensures comprehensive governance, it has also resulted in judicial overreach and frequent litigation. Simplification of legal language could make the Constitution more accessible to the general public.

Previous Year Questions on Indian Constitution

1. UPSC CSE Prelims 2021

Question: Which of the following is not a criticism of the Indian Constitution?
A. Borrowed nature
B. Over-representation of minority groups
C. Un-Gandhian principles
D. Excessive legal complexity

Answer: B

Explanation: The Indian Constitution was criticized for being unrepresentative but was not specifically criticized for over-representing minorities. The main criticisms revolved around its borrowed nature, legal complexity, and divergence from Gandhian principles.

2. UPSC CSE Mains 2019 (GS Paper 2)

Question: "The Indian Constitution has been criticized as being a bag of borrowings." Do you agree? Justify your answer.

Answer: The Indian Constitution is often criticized as being a "bag of borrowings" since it incorporates elements from various international constitutions. For example, the parliamentary system was borrowed from the UK, while the fundamental rights drew inspiration from the US. However, the framers adapted these provisions to suit India’s specific needs, creating a balanced document that addresses the country’s diverse cultural and socio-economic landscape.

*email: contactus@prepp.in