Article 21 Of The Constitution Of India Various aspects- Expanded by Supreme Court

The Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution. One of these rights is provided under article 21 which reads as follows:-
Article 21. Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word No has been used in relation to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal liberty or

deprivation of life of other person. Such violation would not fall under the parameters set for the Article 21. in such a case the remedy for aggrieved person would be either under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law. But, where an act of private individual supported by the state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the act will certainly come under the ambit of Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution deals with prevention of encroachment upon personal liberty or deprivation of life of a person.


The state cannot be defined in a restricted sense. It includes Government Departments, Legislature, Administration, Local Authorities exercising statutory powers and so on so forth, but it does not include non-statutory or private bodies having no statutory powers. For example: company, autonomous body and others. Therefore, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 relates only to the acts of State or acts under the authority of the State which are not according to procedure

established by law. The main object of Article 21 is that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed. Right to Life means the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted meaning. It is something more than surviving or animal existence. The meaning of the word life cannot be narrowed down and it will be available not only to every citizen of the country . As far as Personal Liberty is concerned , it means freedom from physical restraint of the person by personal incarceration or otherwise and it includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided under Article 19 of the Constitution. Procedure established by Law means the law enacted by the State. Deprived has also wide range of meaning under the Constitution. These ingredients are the soul of this provision. The fundamental right under Article 21 is one of the most important rights provided under the Constitution which has been described as heart of fundamental rights by the Apex Court.
The scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow till 50s as it was held by the Apex Court in Gopalans case that the contents and subject matter of Article 21 and 19 (1) (d) are not identical and they proceed on total principles. In this case the word deprivation was construed in a narrow sense and it was held that the deprivation does not restrict upon the right to move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d). at that time Gopalans case was the leading case in respect of Article 21

along with some other Articles of the Constitution, but post Gopalan case the scenario in respect of scope of Article 21 has been expanded or modified gradually through different decisions of the Apex Court and it was held that interference with the freedom of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in jail would require authority of law. Whether the reasonableness of a penal law can be examined with reference to Article 19, was the point in issue after Gopalans case in

the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Apex Court opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. This view has been further relied upon in a case of

Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others as follows:
Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has therefore now to pass the test not only for Article 22, but also of Article 21 and if the constitutional validity of any such law is challenged, the court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such law for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just. In another case of Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others , it was further observed : Just as a mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so, unreasonableness

vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right must conform the norms of justice and fair play. Procedure, which is just or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it.As stated earlier, the protection of Article 21 is wide enough and it was further widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others in respect of bonded labour and weaker section of the society. It lays down as follows:
Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. Both the Central Government and the State Government are therefore bound to ensure observance of the various social welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the directive principles of the state policy.
The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right to rehabilitation after release, right to live hood by legal means and decent environment. The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and some of them are listed below:

(1) The right to go abroad.

(2) The right to privacy.

(3) The right against solitary confinement.

(4) The right against hand cuffing.

(5) The right against delayed execution.

(6) The right to shelter.

(7) The right against custodial death.

(8) The right against public hanging.

(9) Doctors assistance.
It was observed in Unni Krishnans case that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life.
As a result of expansion of the scope of Article 21, the Public Interest Litigations in respect of children in jail being entitled to special protection, health hazards due to pollution and harmful drugs, housing for beggars, immediate medical aid to injured persons, starvation deaths, the right to know, the right to open trial, inhuman conditions in aftercare home have found place under it. Through various judgments the Apex Court also included many of the non-justifiable Directive Principles embodied under part IV of the Constitution and some of the examples are as under:(a) Right to pollution free water and air.

(b) Protection of under-trial.

(c) Right of every child to a full development.

(d) Protection of cultural heritage.
Maintenance and improvement of public health, improvement of means of communication, providing human conditions in prisons, maintaining hygienic condition in slaughter houses have also been included in the expanded scope of Article 21. this scope further has been extended even to innocent hostages detained by militants in shrine who are beyond the control of the state.
The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and others it was held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstance the state is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. While dealing with the provision of Article 21 in respect of personal liberty, Hon'ble Supreme Court put some restrictions in a case of Javed and others v. State of Hariyana, AIR 2003 SC 3057 as follows: at the very outset we are constrained to observe that the law laid down by this court in the decisions relied on either being misread or read divorced of the context. The test of reasonableness is not a wholly subjective test and its contours are fairly indicated by the Constitution. The requirement of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights. The lofty ideals of social and economic justice, the advancement of the nation as a whole and the philosophy of distributive justice- economic, social and political- cannot be given a go-by in the name of undue stress on fundamental rights and individual liberty. Reasonableness and rationality, legally as well as philosophically, provide colour to the meaning of fundamental rights and these principles are deducible from

those very decisions which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.



The Apex Court led a great importance on reasonableness and rationality of the provision and it is pointed out that in the name of undue stress on Fundamental Rights and Individual Liberty, the ideals of social and economic justice cannot be given a go-by. Thus it is clear that the provision Article 21 was constructed narrowly at the initial stage but the law in respect of life and personal liberty of a person was developed gradually and a liberal interpretation was given to these words. New dimensions have been added to the scope of Article21 from time to time. It imposed a limitation upon a procedure which prescribed for depriving a person of life and personal liberty by saying that the procedure which prescribed for depriving a person of life and personal liberty by saying that the procedure must be reasonable, fair and such law should not be arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful. The interpretation which has been given to the words life and personal liberty in various decisions of the Apex Court, it can be said that the protection of life and personal liberty has got multi dimensional meaning and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the State which deprived the life or personal liberty of a person would be against the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty

The provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under s. 302, IPC was challenged as constitutionally invalid being violate of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution in a series of cases. It was contended in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. that the constitutional validity of death sentence has to be tested with reference to Arts. 14 and 19 besides Art. 21 of the Constitution as the right to life is fundamental to the enjoyment of all these freedoms as contained in Art. 19 of the Constitution.
It was further contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribed the procedure of finding guilt of an accused but regarding the sentence to be awarded under s. 302, IPC the unguided and uncontrolled discretion has been left to the Judge to decide the sentence to be awarded. The Supreme Court held that the death sentence as an alternative punishment under s. 302, IPC is not unreasonable and it is in the public interest and the procedural safeguard provided to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unreasonable leaving the discretion with the judge to sentence an accused, convicted for murder either to death or life imprisonment Death sentence as an alternative punishment for life was held valid.
Though the court did not accept the contention that the validity of the sentence to death has to be tested in the light of Arts. 14 and 10 of the Constitution. But in Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. the court accepted the proposition that the validity of the death sentence can be tested with reference to Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court suggested that in exceptional circumstances death sentence should be imposed only when public interest, social defence and public order would warrant. Such extreme penalty should be imposed in extreme circumstances. The court in Barchan Singh v. State of Punjab upheld that constitutional validity of death sentence. The court reasoned that penal law does not attract Art. 19(1) of the Constitution. If the impact of the law on nay of the rights under Art. 19(1) is merely incidental, indirect, remote or collateral, Art. 19 would not be available for testing its validity.
Accordingly, the court held that s. 302, IPC for its validity would not require to qualify the test of Art. 19. The procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing capital punishment for murder cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable and unjust. But Justice Bhagwati in his dissenting judgment held that s. 302, IPC and s. 354(3), Cr PC violation of Arts. 14 and 21 as these provisions confers unguided power on the court which irrational and arbitrary.
Thus, death sentence should be imposed in the rarest of the rare case. The Supreme Court in Machhi Sing v State of Punjab laid down the broad outlines of the circumstances when death sentence should be imposed. It should be considered whether there is something uncommon about the crime and the compelling circumstances for imposing death sentence after giving maximum weight age of the mitigating circumstances which is favour of the accused.

Jumman Kahn was facing the gallows on being sentenced to death for having brutally raped and strangulated to death a six year old girl named Sakina. The convict challenged the death sentence and its constitutionality.It was argued that death penalty is not only outmoded, unreasonable, cruel and unusual punishment but also defies the dignity of the individual and the issue needs reconsideration which stands like sentinel over human misery, degradation and oppression. The Supreme Court while endorsing its earlier view as to the constitutionality of death sentence held that the failure to impose death sentence is such grave cases here it is a crime against the society, particularly in case of murders with extreme brutality will bring to naught the sentence of death penalty provided by s. 302 of IPC. The only punishment which the convict deserves for having committed the reprehensible and gruesome murder of the innocent child to satisfy his lust is nothing but death as a measure of social necessity and also a means of deterring other potential offenders.
The Supreme Court in earlier case Banchan Singh v. State Punjab upheld the constitutional validity of imposition of death sentence as an alternative to life imprisonment and it was further that it is not violate of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Chandrachud expressing the view of the three Judges of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v State of Punjabheld that death sentence is constitutionally valid and permissible within the constrains of the rule in Bachan Singh (supra). This has to be accepted as the law of the land. The decisions rendered by this court after full debate has to be accepted without mental reservation until they are set aside.
The challenge touching the constitutionality of the death sentence also surfaced in Triveniben v State of Gujarat and in Allauddin’s case and the Supreme Court asserted affirmatively that the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty.
It is in the rare cases, the legislature in its wisdom, considered it necessary impose the extreme punishment of death to deter others and to protect the society. The choice of sentence is left with the rider that the judge may visit the convict with extreme punishment provided there exist special reasons for doing so. The provision of Art. 302, IPC is consistent with the Constitutional Provision of Art. 21 which enjoins that personal liberty or life of an individual shall not be taken except according to the procedure established by law. Whether death penalty violates Art. 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and the court answered the contention in the negative.
In the face of the statutory provision in cl. (3) of s. 354 of the Cr. PC requiring giving of special reason while imposing death penalty which is consistent with Art. 21 of the Constitution which enjoins that the personal liberty or life of an individual shall not be taken except according to the procedure established by law, the extreme plea of death in no case cannot be countenanced and death penalty cannot be said to be violate of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Section 302, IPC casts a heavy duty on the court to choose between death sentence and imprisonment for life and court must show high degree of concern and sensitiveness in the choice of sentence. It was held in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar that special reason in s. 354, Cr. PC should be sufficient safe guard against arbitrary imposition of extreme penalty. Where a sentence of severity is imposed, it is imperative that the Judge should indicate the basis upon which he considered the sentence of that magnitude justified.

article 21 of Constitution of India : Right to Live

Indian democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only to protect fundamental rights of its citizens but also to establish an egalitarian order. Law being an instrument of social engineering obliges the judiciary to carry out the process established by it.


Lord Chancellor Sankey once said amidst the cross currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a great ark upon which a man may set his foot and be safe. In this remark, he has emphasized on the importance of law. It is needless to say that life of an individual in a society would become a continuing disaster if not regulated.
The first decision given to interpret the scope and meaning of life and personal liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution was:

A.K.Gopalan VS. State Of Madras (air 1950 sc 27)

The apex court interpreted that the words "procedure established by law" in article 21 are to be given a wide and fluid meaning of the expression "due process of law" as given under the u.s. constitution but it refers to only state made statues laws. if any statutory law prescribed procedure for deprieving a person of his rights or personal liberty it should meet the

requirements of article 21
However, after 2 decades this was over ruled in the case of R.C.Cooper VS. Union Of India (AIR 1970 SC 564) after this there where a series of decisions by the apex court including that of maneka gandhi vs. Union of India in this case it was held that any law that deprives the life and liberty must be just and fair
krishna iyer j. rightly said that "procedure" in article 21 means fair , not formal procedure law is reasonable law not any enacted pieces"

Now it is settled that

That article 21 confers positive rights to life and liberty The word life in article 21 means a life of dignity and not just mere animal survival (this was also upheld in the case of Francis caralie{(1993)1 scc 645} The procedure of depriving a person of his life and liberty must be reasonable, air and just
In the 1978, the 44th amendment of the constitution took place, article 359 was amended, and it provided that article 20 and 21 could not be suspended even during declaration of an emergency. In the case of P.Rathinam case held that right to live includes right not to live. Physical as well as mental health both are treated as integral part of right to live upholding that without good health , neither civil nor political rights which constitution confers cant be enjoyed. Judiciary has played a vital role in the interpretation and correct use of article 21.
The following are some cases on "right to life" through judicial activism

C Masilamani Mudaliar Vs. Idol Of Sri Swami Nathaswami Thrukoll {(1996) 8scc525/Pr22}
Article 21 of the Indian constitution reinforces "right to life". Equity, dignity of a person and the right to development are the inherent rights of every human being. Life in its expanded horizon includes everything that gives meaning to a person's life including culture, heritage and tradition with dignity of a person.
Noise Pollution (V), In Re, {(2005) 5 Scc 733/Pr 10}

Article 21 guarantees right to life and includes all those aspects which make a persons life meaningful, complete and worth living. In the above case, it was held that any one who wishes to live in peace, no one can claim a right to create noise even though he does so in his own premises. Any noise, which materially interferes with the ordinary comforts of the life of the other, judged by an ordinary prudent man is nuisance.
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab {(1994) 3 scc 569}

Speedy trail is an essential part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Unni krishnan vs. State of Andhra pradesh

the apex court has widened the scope of article 21 and has provided with the rights article 21 embraces within itself. They are

Right to go abroad

Right to privacy

Right against solitary confinement

Right against delayed execution

Right to shelter

Right against custodial death

Right against public hearing

Doctor's assistance
Along with all these above-mentioned rights, it was also observed that the right to education would also be included as apart of right to life.
A.k. bindal vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163

It was held that no person should be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Thus with the above brief preview of article 21 it is clear that it has a multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the part of any state depriving the life or personal liberty would be against article 21 of the Indian constitution.

art. 30 of The Constitution of India

Article 30


Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.- (1) All

minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and

administer educational institutions of their choice.

_20[(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of

any educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in

clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law

for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right

guaranteed under that clause.]

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against

any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority,

whether based on religion or language.

The Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution

The debate on the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, lying somnolent in the archives of India's


constitutional history during the last decade of the 20th century, has reappeared in the public realm.

While setting up the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (the

Commission), the National Democratic Alliance government (formed by a coalition of 24 national and

regional level parties) stated that the basic structure of the Constitution would not be tampered with.

Justice M.N. Venkatachalaiah, Chairman of the Commission, has emphasised on several occasions

that an inquiry into the basic structure of the Constitution lay beyond the scope of the Commission's

work.

Several political parties -- notably the Congress (I) and the two Communist parties which are in the

opposition -- have made it clear that the review exercise was the government's ploy to seek legitimacy

for its design to adopt radical constitutional reforms thus destroying the basic structure of the

document.

Much of the public debate has been a victim of partial amnesia as even literate circles of urban India

are unsure of the ramifications of this concept, which was hotly debated during the 1970s and 1980s.

The following discussion is an attempt to chart the waters of that period rendered turbulent by the

power struggle between the legislative and the judicial arms of the State.

According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make

laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests

in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. If a law made by

Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has

the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. This check notwithstanding, the founding

fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for

governance. Hence Parliament was invested with the power to amend the Constitution. Article 368

of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and

encompass all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative

enthusiasm of Parliament ever since independence. With the intention of preserving the original

ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers, the apex court pronounced that Parliament could not

distort, damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. The

phrase 'basic structure' itself cannot be found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognised this

concept for the first time in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.1 Ever since the Supreme

Court has been the interpreter of the Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by

Parliament.

The pre-Kesavanada position

Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution, particularly the chapter on the fundamental rights of

citizens, was challenged as early as in 1951. After independence, several laws were enacted in the

states with the aim of reforming land ownership and tenancy structures. This was in keeping with the

ruling Congress party's electoral promise of implementing the socialistic goals of the Constitution

[contained in Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy] that required

equitable distribution of resources of production among all citizens and prevention of

concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Property owners -- adversely affected by these

laws -- petitioned the courts. The courts struck down the land reforms laws saying that they

transgressed the fundamental right to property guaranteed by the Constitution. Piqued by the unfavourable judgements, Parliament placed these laws in the Ninth Schedule of2 the Constitution


through the First and Fourth amendments (1951 and 1952 respectively), thereby effectively

removing them from the scope of judicial review.
 
[Parliament added the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution through the very first amendment in 1951


as a means of immunising certain laws against judicial review. Under the provisions of Article 31,

which themselves were amended several times later, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule -- pertaining

to acquisition of private property and compensation payable for such acquisition -- cannot be

challenged in a court of law on the ground that they violated the fundamental rights of citizens. This

protective umbrella covers more than 250 laws passed by state legislatures with the aim of regulating

the size of land holdings and abolishing various tenancy systems. The Ninth Schedule was created

with the primary objective of preventing the judiciary - which upheld the citizens' right to property on

several occasions - from derailing the Congress party led government's agenda for a social

revolution.]
Property owners again challenged the constitutional amendments which placed land reforms laws in


the Ninth Schedule before the Supreme Court, saying that they violated Article 13 (2) of the

Constitution.
 
In 1967 an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court reversed its position. Delivering its 6:5 majority


judgement in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case , Chief Justice Subba Rao put forth the curious


position that Article 368, that contained provisions related to the amendment of the Constitution,

merely laid down the amending procedure. Article 368 did not confer upon Parliament the power to

amend the Constitution. The amending power (constituent power) of Parliament arose from other

provisions contained in the Constitution (Articles 245, 246, 248) which gave it the power to make

laws (plenary legislative power). Thus, the apex court held that the amending power and legislative

powers of Parliament were essentially the same. Therefore, any amendment of the Constitution must

be deemed law as understood in Article 13 (2).
 
The majority judgement invoked the concept of implied limitations on Parliament's power to


amend the Constitution. This view held that the Constitution gives a place of permanence to the

fundamental freedoms of the citizen. In giving the Constitution to themselves, the people had

reserved the fundamental rights for themselves. Article 13, according to the majority view, expressed

this limitation on the powers of Parliament. Parliament could not modify, restrict or impair

fundamental freedoms due to this very scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms

granted under it. The judges stated that the fundamental rights were so sacrosanct and

transcendental in importance that they could not be restricted even if such a move were to receive

unanimous approval of both houses of Parliament. They observed that a Constituent Assembly might

be summoned by Parliament for the purpose of amending the fundamental rights if necessary.

History

World War II in Europe came to an end on May 9, 1945. In July, a new government came to power in the United Kingdom. The new British government announced its Indian Policy and decided to convene a constitution drafting body. Three British cabinet ministers were sent to find a solution to the question of India's independence. This team of ministers was called the cabinet mission.

The cabinet mission discussed the framework of the constitution and laid down in some detail the procedure to be followed by the constitution drafting body. Elections for the 296 seats assigned to the British Indian provinces were completed by July-August 1946. With the independence of India on August 15, 1947, the Constituent Assembly became a fully sovereign body. The Assembly started working from December 9, 1947.


The Constituent Assembly



The people of India elected the members of the provincial assemblies who in turn elected the members of the Constituent Assembly.



The Constituent Assembly had members belonging to different communities and regions of India. It also had members representing different political properties. Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee were some of the important leaders who guided the discussion in the Assembly. There were more than 30 members of the scheduled classes. The Anglo - Indian community was represented by Frank Anthony and the Parsis were represented by H.P. Modi. Constitutional experts like Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyer, B.R. Ambedkar, B.N. Rau and K.M. Munshi were also members of the Assembly. Sarojini Naidu and Vijaylakshmi Pandit were important women members. Rajendra Prasad was elected president of the Constituen Assembly. B.R. Ambedkar was appointed the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

Importance of Constitution

It lays down the basic structure of the government under which its people are to be governed. It establishes the main organs of the government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.


The Constitution not only defines the powers of each organ, it demarcates the responsibilities of each. It regulates the relationship between the different organs and between the government and the people.

A Constitution is superior to all the laws of the country. Every law enacted by the government has to be in conformity with the Constitution.

The Constitution lays down the national goals of India - Democracy, Socialism, Secularism and National Integration.

It spells out the rights and duties of the citizen

Constitution View

The Constitution of India is not an end but a means to an end, not mere democracy as a political project but a socio-juridical process which opens up through a humanist, radical social order, the opportunity to unfold the full personhood of every citizen. The Indian Federalism is unique in nature and is tailored according to the specific needs of the country. Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India in which the Union of India is permanent and indestructible. Both the Centre and the States are co-operating and coordinating institutions having independence and ought to exercise their respective powers with mutual adjustment, respect, understanding and accommodation. Tension and conflict of the interests of the Centre and the respective units is an integral part of federalism. Prevention as well as amelioration of conflicts is necessary. Thus, the Indian federalism was devised with a strong Centre. Federalism with a strong Centre was inevitable as the framers of the Indian Constitution were aware that there were economic disparities as several areas of India were economically as well as industrially far behind in comparison to others. The nation was committed to a socio economic revolution not only to secure the basic needs of the common man and economic unity of the country but also to bring about a fundamental change in the structure of Indian society in accordance with the egalitarian principles. With these considerations in mind the Constitution makers devised the Indian federation with a strong Union.




Federalism Defined

Federalism constitutes a complex governmental mechanism for the governance of a country. It seeks to draw a balance between the forces working in favour of concentration of power in the Centre and those urging a dispersal of it in a number of units. A federal Constitution envisages a demarcation of governmental functions and powers between the Centre and the regions by the sanction of the Constitution, which is a written document. From this follows two necessary consequences-

(i) That the invasion by one level of government on the area assigned to the other level of the government is a breach of the Constitution.

(ii) That any breach of the Constitution is a justifiable issue to be determined by the Courts as each level of government functions within the area assigned to it by the Constitution.



K.C. Wheare defines federal government as an association of states, which has been formed for certain common purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure of their original independence. A federal government exists when the powers of the government for a community are divided substantially according to a principle that there is a single independent authority for the whole area in respect of some matters and there are independent regional authorities for other matters, each set of authorities being co-ordinate to and subordinate to the others within its own sphere. The framers of the Indian Constitution attempted to avoid the difficulties faced by the federal Constitutions of U.S.A, Canada and Australia and incorporate certain unique features in the working of the Indian Constitution. Thus, our Constitution contains certain novel provisions suited to the Indian conditions. The doubt which emerges about the federal nature of the Indian Constitution is the powers of intervention in the affairs of the states given to the Central Government by the Constitution According to Wheare, in practice the Constitution of India is quasi-federal in nature and not strictly federal. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that India has a federation with a strong centralizing policy. In the words of D.D.Basu The Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of a novel type.



The Indian Constitution is not only regarded as Federal or Unitary in the strict sense of the terms. It is often defined to be quasi-federal in nature also. Throughout the Constitution, emphasis is laid on the fact that India is a single united nation. India is described as a Union of States and is constituted into a sovereign, secular, socialist, democratic republic.



As opposed to this is the opinion of some scholars who regard the Indian Constitution to be unitary in nature. It has been argued that the Indian Constitution does not satisfy certain essential tests of federalism, namely- the right of the units to make their own Constitution and provision of double citizenship. Further, in the three-fold distribution of powers, the most important subjects have been included in the Union list, which is the longest of the three lists containing 97 items. Even regarding the Concurrent list, Parliament enjoys an overriding authority over the State Legislatures. Article 253 empowers the Union Parliament to make laws implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with another country or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body.



Some of the other Constitutional provisions, which are often quoted in favour of the Unitary status of the Indian Constitution are- emergency powers of the president to declare national emergency or declaring emergency in a state in the event of failure of Constitutional machinery, the appointment of governors, unification of judiciary and the dependence of the States on the Centre for finance. The power of the Union to alter the names and territory of the states, to carry out Constitutional amendments and to affect co-ordination among the States and settle their mutual disputes is also regarded as an indicator of the unitary character of the Indian Constitution.



It should be remembered that the aforementioned provisions in the Constitution are aimed at establishing a working balance between the requirements of national unity and autonomy of the States. Dr Ambedkar, one of the architects of the Indian Constitution, rightly prophesied: Our Constitution would be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances.



Constitutional Intent

Being aware that not withstanding a common cultural heritage, without political unity, the country would disintegrate under the pressure of fissiparous forces, the Constituent Assembly addressed itself to the immensely complex task of devising a Union with a strong Centre. In devising the pattern of the Centre State relations they were influenced by the Constitutions of Canada and Australia which have a Parliamentary form of government and America which has a Presidential form of government. The Government of India Act, 1935 was also relied upon with significant changes. The Constitution cannot be called "federal" or

"unitary" in the ideal sense of the terms.



It is stipulated in the Constitution that India will be a Union of States (Art.1). The Constitution, thus postulated India as a Union of States and consequently, the existence of federal structure of governance for this Union of States becomes a basic structure of the Union of India. Dr. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution observed-........ the use of the word Union is deliberate. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not a result of an agreement by the States to join in the federation and that the federation not being the result of an agreement no state has a right to secede from it. Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration the whole country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source.



The Constitution makes a distribution of powers between the Union and the States, the jurisdiction of each being demarcated by the Union, State and Concurrent lists. In case of a conflict between the two legislatures over a matter in the Concurrent list the will of the Parliament prevails. The supremacy of the Constitution- the hallmark of a federation- is an important feature of the Indian polity. Neither the Central government nor the State Governments can override or contravene the provisions of the Constitution. Another pre-requisite of a federation, namely, an independent judiciary - an interpreter and guardian of the Constitution - is also present in the Indian Federation. The Supreme Court can declare any law passed by the Union Parliament or a State legislature ultra vires if it contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution.



Judicial Interpretation

The debate whether India has a ‘Federal Constitution’ and ‘Federal Government’ has been grappling the Apex court in India because of the theoretical label given to the Constitution of India, namely, federal, quasi-federal, unitary. The first significant case where this issue was discussed at length by the apex Court was State of West Bengal V. Union of India. The main issue involved in this case was the exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian states. The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact a law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and other properties vested in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority of states as distinct entities was also examined. The apex court held that the Indian Constitution did not propound a principle of absolute federalism. Though the authority was decentralized this was mainly due to the arduous task of governing the large territory. The court outlined the characteristics, which highlight the fact that the Indian Constitution is not a "traditional federal Constitution". Firstly, there is no separate Constitution for each State as is required in a federal state. The Constitution is the supreme document, which governs all the states. Secondly, the Constitution is liable to be altered by the Union Parliament alone and the units of the country i.e. the States have no power to alter it. Thirdly, the distribution of powers is to facilitate local governance by the states and national policies to be decided by the Centre. Lastly, as against a federal Constitution, which contains internal checks and balances, the Indian Constitution renders supreme power upon the courts to invalidate any action violative of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that both the legislative and executive power of the States are subject to the respective supreme powers of the Union. Legal sovereignty of the Indian nation is vested in the people of India. The political sovereignty is distributed between the Union and the States with greater weight age in favor of the Union. Another reason which militates against the theory of the supremacy of States is that there is no dual citizenship in India. Thus, the learned judges concluded that the structure of the Indian Union as provided by the Constitution one is centralized, with the States occupying a secondary position vis-à-vis the Centre, hence the Centre possessed the requisite powers to acquire properties belonging to States.



As against this opinion, was the judgment rendered by Justice Subba Rao, the great champion of State rights. Justice Subba Rao was of the opinion that under the scheme of the Indian Constitution, sovereign powers are distributed between the Union and the States within their respective spheres. As the legislative field of the union is much wider than that of the State legislative assemblies, the laws passed by the Parliament prevail over the State laws in case of any conflict. In a few cases of legislation where inter-State disputes are involved, sanction of the President is made mandatory for the validity of those laws. Further, every State has its judiciary with the State High Court at the apex. This, in the opinion of the learned judge does not affect the federal principle. He gives the parallel of Australia, where appeals against certain decisions of the High Courts of the Commonwealth of Australia lie with the Privy Council. Thus the Indian federation cannot be negated on this account. In financial matters the Union has more resources at its disposal as compared to the states. Thus, the Union being in charge of the purse strings, can always, persuade the States to abide by its advice. The powers vested in the union in case of national emergencies, internal disturbance or external aggression, financial crisis, and failure of the Constitutional machinery of the State are all extraordinary powers in the nature of safety valves to protect the country’s future. The power granted to the Union to alter the boundaries of the States is also an extraordinary power to meet future contingencies. In their respective spheres, both executive and legislative, the States are supreme. The minority view expressed by Justice Subba Rao has consistency with the federal scheme under the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and distributes the sovereign powers between the coordinate Constitutional entities, namely, the Union and the States.



The next landmark case where the nature of the Indian Constitution was discussed at length was State of Rajasthan V. Union of India. The learned judges embarked upon a discussion of the abstract principles of federalism in the face of the express provisions of the Constitution. It was stated that even if it is possible to see a federal structure behind the establishment of separate executive, legislative and judicial organs in the States, it is apparent from the provision illustrated in Article 356 that the Union Government is entitled to enforce its own views regarding the administration and granting of power in the States. The extent of federalism of the Indian Union is largely watered down by the needs of progress, development and making the nation integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated, and socially and spiritually uplifted. The Court then proceeded to list out some of the Constitutional provisions which establish the supremacy of the Parliament over the State legislatures. In conclusion the apex Court held that it was the ‘prerogative’ of the Union Parliament to issue directives if they were for the benefit of the people of the State and were aimed at achieving the objectives set out in the Preamble.



The issue of federalism was carried forward in S.R.Bommai V. Union of India. Four opinions were rendered, expressing varying views. Justice Ahmadi opined that in order to understand the true nature of the Indian Constitution, it is essential to comprehend the concept of federalism. The essence of the federation is the existence of the Union and the States and the distribution of powers between them. The significant absence of expressions like ‘federal’ or ‘federation’ in the Constitution, the powers of the Parliament under Articles 2 and 3, the extraordinary powers conferred to meet emergency situations, residuary powers, powers to issue directions to the States, concept of single citizenship and the system of integrated judiciary create doubts about the federal nature of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it would be more appropriate to describe the Constitution of India as quasi- federal or unitary rather than a federal Constitution in the true nature of the term. As opposed to this, Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh regarded democracy and federalism as essential features of the Indian Constitution. The overriding powers of the Centre in the event of emergency do not destroy the federal character of the Indian Constitution. The learned judges elaborated upon the scope and justified use of the power conferred on the president by Article 356 which will not restrict the scope of the independent powers of the respective States for "......every State is constituent political unit and has to have an exclusive Executive and Legislature elected and constituted by the same process as the Union Government."



In the opinion of Justice Ramaswamy, the units of the federation had no roots in the past and hence the Constitution does not provide mechanisms to uphold the territorial integrity of the States above the powers of the Parliament. The end sought to be achieved by the Constitution makers was to place the whole country under the control of a unified Central Government, while the States were allowed to exercise their sovereign powers within their legislative, executive and administrative powers. The essence of federalism lies in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the State. Justice Ramawamy declared the Indian structure as organic federalism, designed to suit the parliamentary form of Government and the diverse conditions prevailing in India. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice Agarwal opined that the expression federal or federal form of government has no fixed meaning. The Constitution is also distinct in character, a federation with a bias in favour of the Centre. But this factor does not reduce the States to mere appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them the states are supreme.



Conclusion

We can henceforth see that the Indian judiciary had interpreted the Constitution to declare India a unitary nation. This view of the apex court has lately undergone a change. The Court has recognized the fact that the framers of the Indian Constitution intended to provide a federal structure with a strong Centre, which would prevent the nation from disintegration.

In a subsequent case Chief Justice P.B.Gajendragadkar, emphasized upon the federal nature of the Constitution and the Judiciary as the sole interpreter of the Constitution which could not be changed by the process of ordinary legislation.In the basic structure thesis case Keshavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala some of the judges in the full Constitutional Bench expressed federalism as one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution. In another case Justice Bhagwati, described Indian Constitution as a federal or quasi- federal Constitution. In Sat Pal V. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court again held that Ours is a Constitution where there is a combination of federal structure with unitary features....... In Pradeep Jain V. Union of India, the Apex Court expressed a non-traditionalistic yet pragmatic opinion while explaining the federal concept in the context of the unified legal system in India- India is not a federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign State which have come together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly federal features. In Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court reiterated: Indian Constitution is basically federal in form and is marked by the traditional characteristics of a federal system, namely supremacy of the Constitution, division of power between the Union and States and existence independent judiciary. The apex Court in ITC LTD v Agricultural Produce Market Committee expressed a similar opinion.



The finer federal facet has often been misinterpreted by the central operators. So the battle for federal affirmation and restoration of democratic decentralization has gained momentum over the decade. Important Commissions like Rajamannar and Sarkaria Commission have stressed on the federal soul of the Constitution. In the opinion of Amal Ray, the Indian Constitution is a product of two conflicting cultures one representing the national leader’s normative concern for India’s unique personality and the other over-emphasizing the concern for national unity, security, etc. And as a result, the founding fathers opted for a semi-hegemonic federal structure where the balance is in favour of the Centre. This concept is aptly described in the insight offered by Dr. Ambedkar: the Indian Constitution would work as a federal system in 'normal times' but in times of 'emergency' it could be worked as though it were a unitary system. The critics of the Indian Federal system must not ignore the fact that not only the Federal Government in India has been made deliberately strong, there is also a centralizing tendency in the other federal states of the world such as Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the United States.



In an attempt to assert their independence the States have, at various points of time tried to flout the Centre’s orders. An example was the disobedience of Karnataka to confirm to the Centre’s directives regarding release of water to Tamil Nadu. Such actions have generated wide spread opposition from interested parties. A similar situation arose when Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill, 2004, was flouted by the State of Punjab recently. The unilateral termination of a tripartite agreement raised a controversy in which the authority of the State to commit such an act is being questioned. Annulling the very basis on which the Supreme Court had pressured the State to implement the river water-sharing agreement of 1981, the Bill has created an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.



In a response to the increasing number of water disputes the United Progressive Alliance Government has proposed to set up two Commissions to look into the Centre- State relations, including river water- sharing, and to examine administrative reforms.



In the light of the past experiences of misuse of power certain amendments should be effected which will strengthen the federal nature of our Constitution. Firstly, there should be devolution of more financial resources and powers on the States so that they do not have to depend on the Centre for financial assistance. Secondly number of statutory grants to which the States are entitled should increase. Thirdly, the States should also be given greater autonomy to undertake developmental programmes. Lastly, there should be some inbuilt safeguards against the blatant misuse of Article 356 by successive central Governments.



It is time to undertake a study of Indian Federalism with a view to valuate the trends, frictions and difficulties which have developed in the area of inter-governmental relations and to seek to evolve ways and means to meet the challenging task of making the Indian federation a more robust, strong and workable system so that the country may meet the tasks of self-improvement and development.



The responsibility lies on not only the jurists and policy framers, but also the citizens of the country to work in a harmonious manner for the development of the country.

Creator of Constitution of India - Babasaheb Ambedkar

Life and mission:
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a veritable phenomenon of the 20th century. There may scarcely be a parallel indeed in the annals of human history to the saga of struggle that his life represented. Born in the family of ‘untouchables’, he could nonetheless scale the highest peak of scholarship, leadership and statesmanship. When the Hindu caste system had ordained severe punishment for his community for so much as thirsting for education and knowledge, he had secured the highest academic honours from the most prestigious universities of the world and thus conclusively refuted the basic premise of intrinsic inferiority or superiority based on one’s birth proffered by the caste system. For over two millennia, the Hindu caste system had perfected itself into a self-sustaining mechanism of exploitation that fossilised all the social relationship into a caste cauldron and in process had completely robbed the labouring masses like untouchables of their human identity. He had reclaimed for them this identity, breathed political consciousness and galvanised them into a vibrant movement that changed the course of Indian politics. In the epic battle against the vile and complex caste system, he had single-handedly performed the roles of a researcher, a theoretician, an organiser, a journalist, a politician, a leader etc. against all possible odds and still come out with outstanding results. He was among few who dared the contemporary might of the then Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi and stood his grounds even in the face of threats to his life. At symbolical plane, Manu who was the evil enemy in this epic battle as the code giver for the caste system, had to concede defeat and make place for Ambedkar code in the form of the Constitution of India. Eventually, he enacted the biggest religious conversion in the history that ensconced him with his western attire at the place alongside Buddha as the spiritual deity for his people.



During his lifetime Dr. Ambedkar had consistently faced despise, ignominy and insults at the hand of caste establishment. Even after his death, despite his outstanding statesmanship and sterling contributions like drafting the Constitution of India, Ambedkar continued to be despised and ignored by the ungrateful mainstream till the emerging imperatives of electoral politics needed him. Before that, the mainstream even did not concede him so much as leadership of all the untouchables and preferred to belittle him by projecting as a leader of his own community. It systematically either blacked him out from the recorded history or allowed him place in its margins. It strove to confine him to a small community of Maharashtra in which he was born. So effective was this establishment cunning that barring a few pockets outside Maharashtra, where the movement had penetrated in his lifetime, he remained a stranger for a long time to the very people for whom he lived and died. His published writings were all out of print and were available only in a few reputed libraries. A vast unpublished material was embroiled in ownership disputes and hence was decomposing in the custody of courts of law. A few biographies of Ambedkar, among them notably one written by Dhanajay Keer in English (first published 1962) and the other written by Mr. B.C. Khairmode in multiple volumes in Marathi (first volume published in April 1952 and the last volume yet to come), that constituted the earliest source material on Ambedkar had significantly contributed to spread awareness and evoke curiosity about him. However, in absence of an easy access to his original writings he was not even known to the well-meaning intellectual community beyond certain heresies and anecdotes. It is only as a result of struggles of his people that claimed increasing space in contemporary politics and partly influenced by the intrinsic need to woo dalits that the State moved to undertake publication of his writings. The Government of Maharashtra undertook to publish his writings and speeches and came out with its first volume in April 1979. So far 16 volumes have been published which are being translated in Indian languages of some States. Before this project, it needs to be noted that many organisations and individuals claiming allegiance to Ambedkar-thought had brought out reprints of his published writings, compilation of his speeches scattered at many places, and secondary material in his eulogy. It certainly did contribute to spread awareness about the Ambedkar-thought, but due to their meagre resources its reach remained acutely constrained. This constraint was largely overcome when the Government of Maharashtra offered his writings and speeches in well-edited volumes at reasonable prices. Thanks to it, this publication, particularly the ones containing his hitherto unpublished writings, for the first time provided comprehensive introduction to the treatise of his thoughts and expectedly gave impetus to discussions and research work on Ambedkar-thought. The eruption of dalit militancy in the form of Dalit Panthers movement in 70s and the spate of anti-reservation flare ups in 80s, that shook the oppressors as well as oppressed, also significantly motivated the study of Ambedkar-thought.



As the development process picked up momentum in the post-independence period, the contradiction among the ruling classes started growing which in turn manifested into many political parties opening their shops in the electoral market of India. The heat of competition impelled them to see the importance of the vast market segment constituted by the dalit votes. The latter, being one-fourth of the total market, was significant enough even in any electoral constituency to tilt the scale. The broad strategic response possible was either to fragment this segment, which was easy to do along the existing sub-caste fissures, so as to reduce it to insignificance level or to consolidate it and lure it onto ones side. However, with the passage of time the trend of dalits transcending their sub-caste boundaries and getting emotionally bonded around Ambedkar was increasingly becoming visible. As such the former negative strategy became less attractive and was ostensibly adopted by only the hard-core fascist parties. The large-scale adoption of the latter positive strategy meant competition in claiming Ambedkar’s legacy that manifested in hijacking Ambedkar away to the camps of the ruling classes. This cooptation of Ambedkar by the mainstream politics essentially resulted in significant displacement of the genuine Ambedkar by the deformed Ambedkar in the gullible dalit masses. The universal eulogy reflected from the process of cooptation only helped latent tendency towards deification and iconisation of Ambedkar and that virtually made it impossible to review Ambedkar-thought as a living body in the context of changing times and circumstances without incurring the sin of sacrilege.



While the imperatives of electoral politics has changed the attitude of State to the extent of cooptation of Ambedkar, the civil society still reflects the casteist prejudice against him. The process of globalisation driven by the imperialist institutions like IMF and the World Bank since 1980s and which got formally adopted by the Government of India in 1991, in the crisis-ridden economic context unleashed new contradictions that manifested among other, the resurgence of the Hindu fundamentalism. These forces blatantly upheld everything that appeared conclusively condemned by liberal ethos during the post-independence decades. Ambedkar, as a symbol of these ethos naturally became the target for their vicious attack. Currently these attacks could be seen in the form of defilement of his statues and the pseudo-intellectual cunning represented by some reactionary individuals. Both, the cooptation as well as the vilification of Ambedkar are detrimental to the dalit interests. However, the former is much more injurious than the latter. While the latter represents open opposition to the ideology the former would mean adulteration of the ideology itself to suit the State interests. Unless, one is thorough about the ideological nuances and vigilant about its operative manifestations, it becomes extremely difficult to arrest or contain the damage done through the process of cooptation. The ideological weakness in turn incapacitates the struggle in the realm of the civil society and even its organisational apparatus. The present state of fragmentation of the Dalit movement may be largely attributable to this ideological weakness.



The problems of dalits are far from being resolved. Despite the constitutional provision to the contrary, they are being discriminated against day in and day out. This discrimination ranges from the subtle prejudice exercised against them in the modern sectors of economy in the urban areas to the stark practice of untouchability in the rural areas. Another significant constitutional influence on the dalits has been through the policy of reservation in politics, education and services. While, this policy implemented sincerely in political arena as it basically serves the interests of the establishment and provides legitimacy to the system, its implementation in other two spheres has been utterly pathetic. Even over the five decades of its implementation, the unsatisfactory representation of dalits particularly in the higher echelon of services and consistent denial of their dues by the executive as well as judiciary has amply bared the fangs of the State. The condition of majority of dalits in rural areas is no better than it existed five decades before. Pulverisation of dalit politics under the rollers of electoral allurements has incapacitated the dalit movement. The dalits masses today feel utterly cheated but they do not have wherewithal to see by whom.



The typical responses to the empirical state of the dalit masses and their movement are essentially of two types. The first one tends to externalise the failure by accusing the savarnas of cheating or of failing to implement the promises made in the Indian Constitution. The second one tends to internalise it in terms of failure of practice by dalits, particularly the dalit leaders and intellectuals. It accuses the dalit intellectuals and politicians of having snapped themselves off their roots and of betraying the dalit movement. They have come to be a class for itself. Both represent partial truth at some level. These very allegations however tend to submerge the basic question about the efficacy of strategy of the movement and in turn of its ideology that failed to firstly envisage and thereafter arrest the undesired happenings. As for the leaders and the dalit intellectuals (or more correctly the educated dalits), they represent the output of the movement. Insofar as Ambedkar represents a fountainhead of both the strategy as well as the ideology of the dalit movement, his thoughts should constitute essential terrain to search the causes of these failures.



The difficulty in this enterprise is immense despite much of Ambedkar’s writings and speeches are available in English language and a plethora of secondary and tertiary literature having been published in recent times. Ambedkar lived through a turbulent period of the Indian history, creating space for the dalit movement within the interstices between the movements of the contending classes with his meagre resources. His thoughts are therefore heavily contextised by the dynamics of this contention. While simultaneously trying to build the ideological foundation for the movement, they tend to reflect expediency of survival and his anxiety to maximise the short-term gains for dalits. While it may not be difficult to discern the ideological strains in his writings, the task of its precise definition (exaction) poses problematic on two counts. First, many a familiar construct and concept in his usage do not bear their familiar meanings as indicated by him. For instance, while he adores the dictum of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ propounded by Roussou that blazed the French Revolution, he faults it and finds its perfection in Buddha; while he reflects western liberalism and admires its proponents, he denies being a liberal; while he appears to accept the ideal of socialism in Marxism, he does not seem to talk about the scientific socialism in it and rather finds his dream world in Buddhist Sangha; while he accepts the premise that there are classes in society in contradiction with each other, he rejects the imperative of class struggle and foresees the class conciliation through the constitutional methods. One could easily go on listing the similar problematic of language. Indeed when eventually, when he embraced Budhhism, it was not to be the Buddhism familiar to the world but the one he interpreted to be propounded by Buddha, the Dhamma of Buddha essentially of his conception. Secondly, while he grants one freedom to test him out on the principles of rationality and on the basis of experience, he appears inaccessible for the purpose, well beyond the impregnable fortification erected by the powerful vested interests.



The collapse of so called socialist regimes and consequent emergence of the unipolar world order is casting its savage shadow on the struggles of the oppressed people all over the world. The ideology of neo-liberalism with the backing of modern media and military might is fast marginalising the resistance and transforming the world into a market where a person is granted a hallowed identity of a customer. His claim to liberty, equality and fraternity is conceded in proportion to his purchasing power in the market where everything is a commodity. The impact of this ideology is already visible in terms of gnawing inequality that is compounding with every passing year. The odds for the oppressed people are indeed mounting on every front. They face an unprecedented ideological crisis today for effectively articulating their emancipatory struggles. They need to objectively review the weapons in their ideological armoury, to identify the ones that could be regenerated, the ones that could be modified and the ones that need to be altogether replaced. Ambedkar-thought that constituted weaponry of dalits and oppressed people in India, has certain attributes that could be used to recreate the new weapons. It has certain regenerative potential to be of continued relevance provided it is used in the desired manner and not monopolised by the vested and sectarian interests. The time has come to consolidate the ideological armour of the have-nots of the world and the study of Ambedkar-thought here is envisaged from that viewpoint. It is imperative that it is made available to many people in the world. It is necessary that it be subject to review from many viewpoints. It is vital that it is evaluated on the basis of concrete experience. One respects contributions of great people not in blind allegiance but by serving the cause that he or she lived and died for. As Ambedkar said of great people and demonstrated in relation to Buddha whom he undoubtedly adored most, following him lies in not cold storing his thoughts in a time vault but in constantly using it in the struggle, constantly cleaning and honing it for its usage is bound to dirty it and deform it, constantly review its effectiveness as with the passage of time it might need supplement or replacement. Only the concerted struggle of many committed people can restore true Ambedkar to his people.

Constitution of India - Structure and its Impaortance