Constitution Adoption Day: Uncomfortable questions on Republic of India’s founding document

The Constitution Adoption Day is often observed with patriotic messages, ceremonial speeches, and reverential praise for the document that transformed an independent territory into a sovereign democratic republic. Yet the process that created this text was shaped by politics, compromise, and borrowed ideas. Revisiting that story is not an act of cynicism. It is an attempt to understand the origins of a framework that governs every aspect of public life.

The Constituent Assembly did not represent universal suffrage. Its members were indirectly elected through provincial legislatures formed under a colonial statute. This was the best India could secure under political constraints, but it also meant marginalised communities had far less representation in drafting power than in today’s Parliament.

Despite these limitations, the assembly debated the draft over multiple sessions. Fundamental rights sparked fierce exchanges. Some members pushed for sweeping protections for speech and property, while others warned that such freedoms could destabilise a fragile state emerging from Partition violence. The final text reflected messy compromise, not philosophical purity.

This is not an indictment of the framers. It is a reminder that the Constitution of India was neither handed down by saints nor written in a vacuum. It emerged from human negotiation, with all its strengths and weaknesses.

Ambedkar's legacy, myth of single authorship

BR Ambedkar was undeniably the most visible public face of the drafting committee. His command of constitutional law was extraordinary. His sharp interventions shaped key portions of the text. His ability to articulate minority concerns elevated debates that others preferred to avoid.

However, widespread belief in some circles that Ambedkar wrote the document single-handedly is historically inaccurate. This belief, though understandable given his later political symbolism, oversimplifies collaborative labour. The constitution was drafted by a committee consisting of seven members and finalised by hundreds of assembly members who scrutinised every clause. Many crucial provisions were lifted from earlier Government of India Acts, foreign constitutions, and committee reports prepared long before Ambedkar became drafting chairman.

Another dimension cannot be ignored. Ambedkar’s prominence in contemporary political discourse owes as much to electoral compulsions as to historical fact. Multiple parties invoke his name to connect with Dalit voters. This has resulted in a hagiographic representation that flattens his intellectual complexity into a convenient brand.

Recognising Ambedkar’s importance does not require erasing the contributions of others like BN Rau, whose role in preparing the original draft was foundational. Nor does it require pretending that a vast constitutional project can be the work of one person. To celebrate Ambedkar meaningfully is to acknowledge his fundamental role rather than the political mythology around it.

Constitution-related controversies, plagiarism charge

Charges of plagiarism have accompanied the constitution for decades. Critics point to similarities with the constitutions of five Western democracies, alongside colonial legislation. Supporters argue that borrowing from established systems was pragmatic for a country with little room for experimentation.

Parts of the constitution resemble the British parliamentary framework. Fundamental rights borrow from the United States. Directive principles take inspiration from Ireland. Emergency powers echo the Weimar Republic. Judicial review bears traces of American jurisprudence. Federal structure looks similar to Canada’s.

Is this plagiarism? Only if one imagines that every constitution must be an entirely original invention. In practice, nearly all modern constitutions borrow from earlier frameworks. Constitutional drafting is less a creative exercise and more a process of selecting workable ideas.

Yet the criticism about excessive borrowing also reveals a more profound discomfort. India did not start with a clean slate. The immediate post-colonial state inherited an administrative and legal structure that was heavily centralised, with limited faith in local autonomy. Instead of dismantling this framework, the constitution absorbed large portions of it.

This leads to another allegation: whether the constitution is merely a rehashed version of the Government of India Act 1935. A large portion of administrative architecture, including federal lists, public services, emergency provisions and provincial powers, resembled the colonial model. The need for continuity after Partition partly explains this. But it also meant a pivotal moment of liberation was accompanied by institutional continuity rather than structural rupture.

Amendment record, question of sacrosanctity

The constitution has been amended over one hundred times. Supporters argue that flexibility is a mark of maturity. Critics believe constant tinkering is evidence that the document is too unwieldy and politically vulnerable.

Both arguments hold true. Amendments allowed corrections to poor drafting choices, adjustments to socio-economic realities and expansions of rights. Abolishing the privy purse or reworking federal fiscal arrangements required constitutional change. Democratic evolution depends on the ability to revise earlier choices.

However, frequent amendments also reflect deeper tensions. Many changes were introduced to overcome judicial scrutiny or secure political power. The emergency-era amendments attempted to concentrate authority in the executive. Later amendments occasionally reversed inconvenient court judgments. In these cases, the amendment process became a tool of power rather than a vehicle for democratic consensus.

This raises an uncomfortable question. If a constitution is rewritten constantly, can it still be considered sacrosanct? Reverence is meaningful only if the text represents stable principles. When the text becomes a battleground for competing political interests, the idea of a permanent constitutional morality weakens.

Colonial legal hangover, puzzle of 1860-vintage codes

One of the most striking continuities in Indian governance was the retention of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code drafted under colonial rule in the mid-nineteenth century. These codes, conceived to discipline colonial subjects, remained operational for nearly one and a half centuries.

Why did independent India retain them? The most straightforward answer is administrative convenience. After the Partition and violence, the state needed continuity in criminal law. Drafting new codes would have required time, expertise and political consensus.

Yet this explanation is incomplete. Persistence of these laws also reflects an instinctive preference of the Indian state for centralised authority and strong policing. The codes prioritised state power over individual liberty. Independent India accepted this balance rather than redesigning it.

This continuity exposes a paradox. India framed a modern constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights, yet enforced those rights through colonial legal instruments. Only recently have these codes been replaced. That it took so long reveals how comfortable successive governments were with colonial legal frameworks.

Constitutional practice, a harsh truth about compliance

Even if one accepts that the constitution is imperfect, the more urgent question is whether the state follows it. Evidence suggests uneven compliance.

One area of concern is federalism. Although the constitution envisioned a union with shared powers, political practice has tilted towards centralisation. Governors have occasionally acted as partisan actors. Central agencies have been used to pressure opposition-ruled states. Fiscal transfers often become tools of political negotiation.

Another area is fundamental rights. Free expression faces subtle and overt pressure through sedition-like charges for criticising the government of the day, defamation cases by state-level politicians and police action against dissent. Personal liberty has been compromised by preventive detention laws that survive constitutional scrutiny despite contradicting the spirit of liberty.

The judicial system is another concern. Backlogs and delays undermine the right to timely justice. When courts take years to decide constitutional challenges, immediate constitutional violations continue unchecked.

At the same time, the constitution has empowered citizens in ways earlier generations could not imagine. Public interest litigation expanded access to courts. Independent institutions, despite pressure, still act as checks. Civil society employs constitutional language to hold the state accountable. Compliance may be imperfect, but the constitution continues to offer tools of resistance.

Still, the fact remains: constitutional morality is not automatically embedded in governance; it requires practice, vigilance and sustained public pressure.

Constitution's future, need for honest debate

Marking the Constitution Adoption Day with uncritical celebration does little justice to its legacy. Honest interrogation keeps institutions healthy. Asking difficult questions is not disrespect; it is an acknowledgement of a living document that affects every citizen.

India’s constitution is neither a holy scripture nor a colonial relic. It is a hybrid document shaped by the trauma of Partition, the urgency of state-building, the influence of foreign models and competing visions of democracy. Its imperfections are evident. Its achievements are undeniable.

The path forward requires acknowledging complexity rather than retreating into symbolism. It requires celebrating Ambedkar’s contributions without reducing him to political shorthand. It warrants understanding that borrowed ideas are not weaknesses unless implemented without adaptation. It merits admitting that amendments must secure rights and strengthen democracy rather than serve partisan ends.

Most importantly, it requires answering one decisive question: Is India committed to practising constitutionalism rather than merely performing it? Until the state embraces this commitment, the promise of the constitution will remain aspirational rather than fulfilled.