Constitution: Noun or Verb?

A Critique on Locating Indian

Constitutionalism

The constitution does not just protect those whose views we share; it also protects those with
whose views we disagree.

- Edward Kennedy

The tour de horizon of the Indian constitution, as the authors portray is an unblemished
amalgamation of key factors associated with constitutionalism. The discourse is divided into
three healthy servings. For starters, the historical overview of the constitution is justifiably
aerated with added emphasis to the two charismatic aspects of constitutionalism; social
revolution and the constitution as a political project. The analogy in the beliefs of Grote and B.R.
Ambedkar with regard to the subtleties involved is drawn crystal clear. The main course, serving
axles of constitutionalism starts with a brief yet crispy analysis of the self consciously
cosmopolitan character of the aging document. Constitutional morality as a means of allegiance
to the law of the land and a security for the foundation to the constitutional structure has been
enshrined in the Indian constitution by virtue of its capacity to engulf all associated classes
irrespective of the natural born distinctions. Absence of self restraint conceive revolutions and
the irony in the Indian context stands ground that such revolutions that propagated the ideologies
of popular sovereignty now hold the somewhat shaky grounds of constitutional morality. The
conservative copybook thinkers raise contentions that the constitution hence framed is least
Indian. The cosmopolitan nature of the same acquiring policies and jurisprudence from all over
the globe, or maybe even Mars for that matter, is contended widely to the derogatory to the
Indian principles. The authors however majestically nullify such claims by two legit arguments;
firstly, the absurdity in limiting sources of normative and legal authority and secondly the
concept of forward and backward looking constitution. The variance catered by such versatility
has put contrastingly different issues like jurisdiction and ecology in the same footing. Further
analysis reveals the tensions that the document addresses. The suppositions of constitutional
amendment and judicial review, written constitution and parliamentary sovereignty, fundamental
rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, Center and State relationship spice up the already
sizzling pot. The provision of reservation for oppressed classes is further defended by the
contention that, equality is among equals and not inequals. Finally the desert, also known as
constitutional development in India codifies the situations responsible for the failure of state
mechanism, namely low state capacity including lacunas in grievance redressal and political
gridlock causing delay in legislative enactments. Further burdening the already dead weighted
judiciary with administrative functions and no clear distinction between tort and constitutional
law reaches, worsens the fragile condition. The design of the constitution is structured to impart
dual nature to the apex court; both appellate and constitutional. The jurisprudence set by courts
in India is never uniform and often driven by political motives. The constitution is a bitter
compromise between the law and democracy for a sweeter citizenship. However, at times the
power of the Supreme Court is remonstranced to be the undisputed arbiter by virtue of judicial
review coupled up with the basic structure doctrine. Perfection is a character which gradually
gets diluted with the ideals of compromise. A compromise with 1.2 billion humans is no easy
business and no level of dilution can compensate the aura with which the Indian constitution
stands today as the pride of the worlds largest democracy.

Sarthak Mishra