The Indian Constitution is more than a legal framework—it is a testament to the nation’s ability to weave together diverse influences into a coherent whole. It is, in essence, a symphony of ideas, where the wisdom of the ages merges seamlessly with the demands of modernity. As I reflect on this magnificent document, I am reminded of a sculptor chiseling away at a block of marble, revealing a form that is not only beautiful but enduring, adaptable, and deeply reflective of the people it serves.
At its core, the Constitution is a polyglot—a creation born out of a dialogue between India’s ancient civilizational ethos and the great constitutional experiments of the world. It reflects the evolution of human governance, from the flickering flames of Magna Carta to the revolutionary principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity espoused during the French Revolution. Yet, it is uniquely Indian, embodying the spirit of a civilization that has, for millennia, placed a high value on justice, equity, and the welfare of all living beings.
In borrowing from these various traditions, the Indian Constitution becomes more than just a document. It becomes a living organism, growing and evolving as our nation changes. In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, “The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” It is in this spirit that we must explore how this monumental text has guided us, not just in times of prosperity, but in moments of profound challenge and transformation.
The Legacy of Magna Carta: Liberty Takes Root
15th of June, is a date that carries significant weight in the annals of legal history. Why, you ask? It is the 795th anniversary of Magna Carta, a document that arguably laid the foundation for the liberties that are now cherished in most parts of the democratic world. The Magna Carta, framed in 1215, during the reign of King John, is a document that, in its time, was a small flicker of light in the otherwise despotic darkness of medieval rule. It marked the beginning of parliamentary control over absolute monarchy, laying the groundwork for what would evolve into the modern conception of individual liberty.
From Magna Carta’s flickering flame, the embers of freedom and justice slowly grew into a roaring fire, a fire that eventually found its place in the Indian Constitution. This is particularly evident in Part III, the Fundamental Rights chapter, which guarantees the personal freedoms and liberties that are the hallmark of any democratic republic. These rights are not mere legal promises but inalienable and fundamental—they belong to every human being by the mere virtue of their existence.
However, what makes Part III truly significant is the realization that it was not just an imitation of other constitutions but a deep reflection on the failures and triumphs of other governments. What sets Part III apart from similar provisions in other constitutions is the careful and deliberate thought that went into its drafting. While India did draw from notable sources such as the U.S. Bill of Rights, it was not a mere act of imitation. Instead, the framers took into account the lessons of history. They saw how certain freedoms had been restricted or abused in different contexts and sought to create a robust system of rights that could stand the test of time and political upheavals. As Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo of the United States once wisely said, “The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by.” The drafters of the Indian Constitution understood this deeply—they were not insulated from the global currents of constitutional thought, and they meticulously crafted Part III to ensure that India could learn from and transcend the errors of other regimes.
Part III is more than just a list of freedoms; it is the moral compass of the Indian Republic. It reflects India’s commitment to ensuring that the horrors of autocracies, monarchies, and socialist regimes of the Soviet type would never find a foothold in this land. Fundamental Rights such as equality before the law (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), and protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21) form the bulwark against tyranny and oppression. These rights are intended to empower citizens not just in times of peace but, more importantly, during periods of crisis when the integrity of the democratic system is tested. The drafters were fully aware that democratic systems across the world had faltered under the weight of authoritarian impulses, and thus, they built Part III as an enduring shield for the Indian people.
In this light, Part III is not just a theoretical construct; it is an essential part of India’s lived reality. These rights have been invoked time and again to protect individual freedoms from governmental overreach, whether in landmark judgments like Kesavananda Bharati or in the more recent Right to Privacy ruling. They are not static; they evolve with the times, responding to new challenges while staying rooted in the fundamental belief that each individual in India is entitled to dignity, liberty, and equality. Part III is what fundamentally separates the Indian state from any form of authoritarian or undemocratic governance—it is the Constitutional firewall that preserves individual liberty in a society that is constantly evolving.
Borrowing From Éire and Japan: Novelty in the Directive Principles
The story of our Constitution does not stop at the shores of England. In fact, as we move further into the fabric of the Constitution, we see how the framers were influenced by the Constitution of Éire (Ireland). One of the most novel features of the Indian Constitution, at the time of its creation, was the inclusion of the Directive Principles of State Policy—an entire chapter designed to guide governance, not through enforceable law but through moral and ethical commitments. This idea was borrowed from Éire’s constitution, a reflection of the evolving philosophies of state governance in the mid-20th century.
The framers of the Indian Constitution, led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, recognized that legal independence from colonial rule, while significant, was only one step in the journey toward true freedom. Ambedkar understood that the social and economic upliftment of the Indian people—who had long been subjected to inequality, poverty, and disenfranchisement—was essential to realizing the Constitution’s vision of justice and equality. He saw the Directive Principles as the means to achieve this transformation, a constant reminder to the State to aim for a more equitable society. While these principles were not enforceable by the courts, they were meant to serve as guiding ideals for future governments, emphasizing the need for social welfare, economic reform, and the reduction of inequality.
The idea of such guiding principles was not entirely novel, even at the time. The concept of a state being bound by higher ethical duties, beyond strict legal obligations, can be traced back to ancient traditions. Hammurabi’s Code—one of the oldest legal codes—enshrined moral obligations on rulers to maintain justice, order, and fairness in society. Similarly, the Dharmashastras of ancient India prescribed a moral code of conduct, reminding rulers of their duty to promote the well-being of their people. Thus, in adopting the Directive Principles, the framers remained true to the civilizational ethos of India, blending ancient wisdom with modern governance models.
What is particularly striking about the Directive Principles is their aspirational nature. They serve as a moral compass, urging the State to strive for ideals such as equal pay for equal work, free and compulsory education for children, and the protection of workers. These principles underscore the Constitution’s commitment to social justice, even if they are not immediately enforceable. In doing so, they reflect the evolving philosophies of state governance in the mid-20th century, when there was a growing recognition that legal frameworks alone could not address the deep-rooted social and economic disparities that plagued nations emerging from colonialism.
The Directive Principles, borrowed from Ireland but steeped in Indian traditions, represent a brilliant confluence of the old and the new, the practical and the ideal. They push the State not just to govern, but to govern with a conscience—to address issues of inequality, poverty, and social justice in a way that empowers every citizen, especially the marginalized.
By incorporating this chapter into our Constitution, the framers made a bold statement: India’s democracy would be about more than just the rule of law—it would be about creating a society where the principles of justice, fairness, and equality were not mere ideals, but living realities for all.
A Word of Caution: Justice Frankfurter and the Due Process Clause
One of the most fascinating anecdotes in the making of our Constitution is the interaction between our very own B.N. Rau and Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court. As the drafting committees carefully reviewed the various sources of inspiration, Rau had the chance to meet Justice Frankfurter, who offered a word of caution—he advised India to steer clear of the Due Process Clause from the U.S. Constitution. The American due process clause had, by the early 20th century, been used by courts to invalidate progressive laws that aimed to improve working conditions, regulate wages, and promote economic justice. This concern resonated with India’s leaders, who were intent on ensuring that the Constitution would not obstruct necessary social reforms, particularly in the context of poverty alleviation and economic upliftment.
Seeking an alternative that would strike a balance between individual liberty and the need for state regulation, the drafters turned to another newly minted constitution—that of Japan. The Japanese Constitution of 1947, particularly Article 31, provided a compelling model. This article introduced the concept of “procedure established by law,” a legal doctrine that focuses on ensuring that any deprivation of life or liberty must follow a procedure that is established by duly enacted law. India adopted this concept in what became Article 21 of its Constitution.
The choice to include “procedure established by law” rather than the American model of “substantive due process” marked a critical distinction. Under this formulation, the emphasis was placed on ensuring that any act of deprivation—whether of life or personal liberty—was executed within the framework of law, ensuring transparency and adherence to legislative processes. However, the judiciary was not empowered to review the substantive fairness of these laws, as was the case with the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause. This limited judicial intervention initially, focusing primarily on ensuring the legality of the process rather than evaluating the justness of the laws themselves.
Over time, however, the interpretation of Article 21 expanded significantly. Beginning with the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court of India read the principles of fairness, justice, and reasonableness into Article 21, thereby broadening its scope to protect personal liberties more robustly. While initially colourless and procedural, Article 21 evolved into one of the most powerful provisions of the Constitution, serving as the foundation for a host of newly recognized rights, including the right to privacy, environmental rights, and the right to education.
Thus, the decision to follow the Japanese model ensured that India’s legal framework would maintain the balance between protecting individual rights and allowing the state the flexibility to legislate for social and economic reforms. This flexibility has allowed the Indian Constitution to stand the test of time, evolving alongside the changing socio-economic landscape of the country while remaining rooted in the principle of fairness through due process.
The Property Conundrum: The Struggle for Land Reform
One of the earliest and most significant tests of the Indian constitutional framework came in the form of land reform legislation. At the heart of this issue was the Congress Party’s commitment to eradicating feudal structures and redistributing land to those who tilled it. Land reform was a crucial part of post-colonial India’s socio-economic agenda, aimed at dismantling the exploitative zamindari system, where large landowners held vast estates, while the majority of the population remained landless and mired in poverty.
The first major step in this direction came with the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950, which sought to abolish zamindari and redistribute land to tenants. However, this progressive legislation was promptly challenged in court. The Patna High Court, in a historic ruling in 1951, struck down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, holding that it violated the fundamental right to property enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution. This ruling was a stark reminder of the tension between the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the newly independent state’s push for economic and social justice.
The Patna High Court’s decision not only posed a legal obstacle to the government’s vision of land reform but also brought to the forefront the inherent conflict between individual property rights and economic redistribution. At the time, property rights were considered inviolable, a concept largely borrowed from Western legal traditions, particularly the U.S. Constitution, where property rights were treated as sacrosanct. However, India, still grappling with immense social inequality and poverty, could not afford to uphold the same principles of property ownership in the face of its socialist-leaning objectives.
In response to this challenge, the government introduced the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, a decisive moment in India’s legal history. This amendment introduced two significant articles—Article 31A and Article 31B—which fundamentally altered the nature of property rights in India. Article 31A was designed to protect land reform laws from being challenged on the grounds that they violated the right to equality or any of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This was a calculated move to ensure that laws aimed at redistributing land could not be easily struck down in courts on constitutional grounds.
But it was Article 31B, introduced alongside Article 31A, that marked a revolutionary shift. Article 31B created the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a unique constitutional mechanism that allowed the government to place specific laws beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny. Laws placed under the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged in court, even if they were in violation of fundamental rights. The Ninth Schedule was initially conceived as a shield to protect critical socio-economic reforms, particularly those related to land redistribution, from being derailed by judicial intervention.
This amendment marked a clear departure from the Western constitutional tradition, particularly that of the United States, where property rights were protected with zeal. In contrast, India made it clear that economic justice—the redistribution of resources to address the vast inequalities created during the colonial era—was paramount, even if it meant curtailing individual property rights. In many ways, this was the first real battle between the old feudal order and the aspirations of a newly independent, socialist-leaning nation.
The First Amendment thus redefined the relationship between property rights and the state’s commitment to social justice. While property rights remained a part of the constitutional framework, they were no longer absolute. The priority shifted towards addressing the collective welfare of the impoverished masses, symbolizing the nascent Indian republic’s desire to move away from centuries of economic oppression.
This moment was pivotal in shaping the role of the Constitution in a rapidly changing society. The First Amendment and the creation of the Ninth Schedule allowed the Indian state to pursue its socialist objectives while maintaining the flexibility to adjust its constitutional framework to reflect the needs of the time. While it was a bold move, it also set the stage for ongoing debates about the balance between judicial review, fundamental rights, and state-driven social reform.
The legacy of the First Amendment endures, as it underscores the fact that the Indian Constitution was not merely an imitation of Western legal models but a dynamic, evolving document capable of adapting to the pressing demands of social justice. By prioritizing economic equality and land reform, India’s founders demonstrated that the Constitution must serve not just as a protector of individual rights but as an instrument of collective upliftment, particularly in a society marked by stark inequalities.
Sankari Prasad and the Debate on Constitutional Amendments
The early constitutional history of India saw several landmark cases, one of which was Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951). In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret the scope of Article 13, which prohibits the State from making any law that violates fundamental rights. The question was whether a constitutional amendment could also be considered “law” under Article 13. In a landmark decision, the Court ruled that an amendment to the Constitution was not “law” in the sense of Article 13, and thus could not be challenged on the grounds that it violated fundamental rights.
This decision had profound implications. It essentially gave Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights chapter. Over time, this power would become the subject of intense debate, culminating in the Kesavananda Bharati case and the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, a doctrine that stands as a bulwark against the erosion of fundamental rights.
The Evolution of the Indian Constitution: A Living Document
Since its adoption in 1950, the Indian Constitution has continuously evolved, adapting to the changing needs of the nation. This evolution is exemplified in landmark amendments that have shaped India’s socio-political landscape. One such amendment was the 42nd Amendment (1976), which introduced significant changes during the Emergency period, including the insertion of the words “secular” and “socialist” into the Preamble. This was a reflection of the country’s shifting focus toward a more inclusive and equitable society.
Another critical example is the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992), which sought to revitalize local governance by empowering Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies. These amendments decentralized power, ensuring that decisions were made closer to the people and enabling a more participatory form of democracy. They underscored the Constitution’s ability to respond to the need for grassroots-level political participation.
More recently, the 103rd Amendment (2019), which provides for 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment, is a reflection of the Constitution’s responsiveness to economic disparities in contemporary India. These amendments serve as reminders that the Constitution is not static; it is dynamic, evolving with time and circumstances, ensuring that the core ideals of justice, liberty, and equality are preserved.
Current Relevance and Challenges of the Indian Constitution
In the present day, the Indian Constitution faces both immense relevance and considerable challenges. On the one hand, it continues to serve as a bulwark against authoritarianism, protecting individual rights and maintaining the separation of powers through the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional principles. In recent years, landmark judgments such as the Right to Privacy (2017) and the decriminalization of Section 377 (2018) have demonstrated how the Constitution continues to uphold individual freedoms in an increasingly complex world.
However, it is also facing challenges that test its resilience. Issues like communalism, social inequality, and political centralization pose significant threats to the constitutional vision of a pluralistic and inclusive society. Moreover, the rising debates around the balance between national security and individual rights, such as in the case of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), highlight the ongoing struggle to reconcile state power with personal liberty. These challenges call for a renewed commitment to the core values enshrined in the Constitution and vigilance to prevent the erosion of democratic principles.
Engaging with the Constitution: A Call to Action
The Indian Constitution is not merely a legal document confined to the courts and lawmakers; it is a living promise that extends to every citizen. It asks something of all of us—to uphold its principles of justice, equality, and fraternity in our daily lives. Whether it is through promoting tolerance, defending the rights of the underprivileged, or exercising our right to vote, we each have a role to play in the success of this democratic experiment.
Let us, as citizens of this great nation, not be passive observers but active participants in our constitutional democracy. Read and understand the Constitution, educate others about it, and most importantly, live by its values. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” By engaging with the Constitution and embodying its principles, we help safeguard the freedoms and rights it guarantees, ensuring that future generations inherit a nation rooted in the same ideals of equality and liberty for all.
Conclusion: A Polyglot Constitution, A Unified Vision
In the end, the Indian Constitution is a polyglot document—a compendium of ideas, concepts, and philosophies borrowed from a wide array of sources. From the Magna Carta to the U.S. Bill of Rights, from the Irish Directive Principles to the Japanese model of legal procedure, India’s Constitution reflects the best practices from around the world. Yet, at its core, it remains deeply Indian, rooted in the values of equality, liberty, and fraternity—values that were birthed not just in the French Revolution but in the age-old traditions of our land.
As we continue to interpret and implement this great document, let us remember that, like the Magna Carta, it is not set in stone. It is a living document, meant to evolve with the needs of the time. The beauty of our Constitution lies not just in its words but in its adaptability. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The Constitution belongs to the living, not the dead.”
And in that spirit, the Indian Constitution will continue to be a beacon of hope, justice, and freedom for generations to come.
—————————————————
Deven Khanna,
Advocate,
Direct (M): + 91 – 7018469792
Office: +91 – 0177 – 2674760
LawUmbrella 