■ EMERGENCY PROVISIONS
#salientfeaturesofconstitution
◇ The Indian Constitution contains elaborate emergency provisions to enable the President to meet any extraordinary situation effectively.
◇ The rationality behind the
incorporation of these provisions is to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, integrity and security of the country, the democratic political system and the Constitution.
□ The Constitution envisages three types of emergencies, namely :-
• National emergency on the ground of war or external aggression or armed rebellion (Article 352);
• State emergency (President’s Rule) on the ground of failure of Constitutional machinery in the states (Article 356) or
failure to comply with the directions of the Centre (Article 365); and
• Financial emergency on the ground of threat to the financial stability or credit of India (Article 360).
■ THREE- TIER GOVERNMENT
#Salientfeaturesofconstitution
◇ Originally, the Indian Constitution, like any other federal Constitution, provided for a dual polity and contained provisions with regard to the organisation and powers of the Centre and the states.
◇ Later, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts(1992) have added a third-tier of Government (i.e., local) which is not found in any other Constitution of the world.
■ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
#Salientfeaturesofconstitution
◇ The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2011 gave a constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies. In this context, it made the following three changes in the Constitution:
◇ It made the right to form co-operative societies a fundamental right (Article 19).
◇ It included a new Directive Principle of State Policy on promotion of co-operative societies (Article 43-B).
◇ It added a new Part IX-B in the Constitution which is entitled as “The Co-operative Societies” (Articles 243-ZH to 243-ZT).
■ A BORROWED CONSTITUTION
#Criticismofconstitution
◇ The critics opined that the Indian Constitution contains nothing new and original. They 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.
◇ However, this criticism is unfair and illogical. This is because, the framers of the Constitution made necessary modifications in the features borrowed from other constitutions for their suitability to the Indian conditions, at the same time avoiding their faults.
◇ While answering the above criticism in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, said : “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
#Criticismofconstitution
◇ The critics said that the framers of the Constitution have included a large number of the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935 into the Constitution of India.
◇ Hence, they called the Constitution as a “Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act” or an “Amended Version of the 1935 Act”. For example, N. Srinivasan observed that the Indian Constitution is “both in language and substance a close copy of the Act of 1935”.
◇ Similarly, Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, said that “the Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act of 1935 from which, in fact, many of its provisions are copied almost textually".
■ UN-INDIAN OR ANTI-INDIAN
#Criticismofconstitution
◇ According to the critics, 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 foreign nature of the Constitution makes it unsuitable to the Indian situation or unworkable in India.
◇ In this context, K. Hanumanthaiya, a member of the Constituent Assembly, commented : “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
#Criticismofconstitution
◇ According to the critics, the Indian Constitution is un-Gandhian because it does not contain the philosophy and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian Nation.
◇ They opined that the Constitution should have been raised and built upon village panchayats and District panchayats In this context, the same member of the Constituent Assembly, K. Hanumanthaiya, said: “That is exactly the kind of Constitution Mahatma Gandhi did not want and did not envisage”.
■ ELEPHANTINE SIZE
#Criticismofconstitution
◇ The critics stated that the Indian Constitution is too bulky and too detailed and contains some unnecessary elements.
◇ Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, observed that the provisions borrowed were not always well-selected and that the constitution, generally speaking, was too long and complicated.
