Criticism of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution, though hailed as a landmark achievement, has not been free from criticism. Right from the time of the Constituent Assembly, scholars, politicians, and critics raised objections on several grounds. Let’s go through the major criticisms one by one:

1. A Borrowed Constitution

• Critics said our Constitution is a “bag of borrowings,” “patchwork,” or “hotchpotch” because it drew heavily from other world constitutions.
• Their argument: “There is nothing new or original.”

👉 Ambedkar’s Reply:

• In modern times, no Constitution can be completely original—basic principles are already well-established.
• What matters is adapting borrowed ideas to Indian conditions while avoiding their defects.
• Quote: “Nobody holds a patent right in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution.”

✅ UPSC angle: Shows that the framers were practical and pragmatic, not blindly imitative.

2. A Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act

• Many critics said the Constitution was an “amended version” of the Government of India Act, 1935.
• Examples:
  • N. Srinivasan → “Close copy in language and substance.”
  • Sir Ivor Jennings → “Copied almost textually.”
  • P.R. Deshmukh → “Basically 1935 Act + Adult Franchise.”

👉 Ambedkar’s Reply:

• No shame in borrowing administrative provisions.
• Constitution-makers had to ensure continuity, so they adopted the administrative framework of 1935 Act but transformed it with democratic features like fundamental rights, universal franchise, responsible govt.

3. Un-Indian or Anti-Indian

• Criticism: Constitution was too Westernized and did not reflect India’s traditions or political culture.
• Quotes:
  • K. Hanumanthaiya → “We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but we got the music of an English band.”
  • Lokanath Misra → “Slavish imitation and surrender to the West.”
  • Lakshminarayan Sahu → Predicted the Constitution would break down soon.

👉 This criticism ignored the fact that India, after centuries of colonial rule, needed a modern framework to ensure democracy and unity in diversity.

4. An Un-Gandhian Constitution

• Critics said it ignored Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of village republics and decentralisation.
• K. Hanumanthaiya: “This is exactly the kind of Constitution Gandhi did not want.”
• T. Prakasam blamed Ambedkar’s antagonism to Gandhian ideas.

👉 Reality:

• While Gandhi’s ideals weren’t central in 1950, later 73rd & 74th Amendments (1992) gave constitutional recognition to Panchayati Raj—bringing India closer to Gandhian philosophy.

5. Elephantine Size

• Constitution is too bulky and detailed—the longest written in the world.
• Sir Ivor Jennings: Overloaded and complicated.
• H.V. Kamath: “Our crest is an elephant; our Constitution too is elephantine.”

👉 Counterpoint: India’s diversity, history, and federal structure required a detailed document. Simplicity like the US or UK would not have worked in India’s complex society.

6. Paradise of the Lawyers

• Critics: Constitution is too legalistic, filled with technical jargon.
• Sir Ivor Jennings: Called it a “lawyer’s paradise.”
• H.K. Maheswari: Feared it would make Indians more litigious and less truthful.
• P.R. Deshmukh: Said it reads like a “ponderous law manual” instead of a lively socio-political charter.

👉 Reality: Legal precision was needed to avoid ambiguity and misuse in a diverse country like India. But yes, the Constitution can appear too word-heavy for the common citizen.