Earlier this week, India celebrated the Constitution Day. She does so every year on November 26th, commemorating the adoption of one of the most progressive and comprehensive constitutions in the world. More a ritual than any meaningful discourse on the part of government, and an occasion to assail the government for the opposition, this day, still marks a milestone in the journey of a newly born sovereign nation.
Drafted in the wake of centuries of colonial subjugation and the trauma of partition, it reflects both the aspirations and apprehensions of a nation striving for unity amidst diversity. However, in recent years, the Constitution has been transformed into a potent instrument of political rhetoric, raising questions about its misuse in public discourse.
The Indian Constitution stands apart for its detail, adaptability, and vision. Rooted in the ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, it seeks to balance individual rights with collective responsibilities. Provisions such as universal adult suffrage, the abolition of untouchability, and affirmative action for marginalized groups underscore its commitment to social justice. Yet, it is equally pragmatic, incorporating mechanisms like emergency powers and central oversight to safeguard national unity in the face of crises. The Constitution’s dual emphasis on aspirations and safeguards encapsulates the resolve of a fractured yet hopeful nation.
A New Weapon in Political Arsenal
In recent times, the Constitution has become the centrepiece of political rhetoric. Opposition parties frequently invoke it to criticize government policies, branding initiatives such as the Common Civil Code or the abrogation of Article 370 as unconstitutional or examples of “majoritarianism.” Ironically, many of these critics have themselves held power for decades and have relied on similar provisions or reforms during their tenures. The current discourse, marked by selective interpretations, dilutes the Constitution’s sanctity and threatens to reduce it to a partisan tool.
This weaponization reveals a troubling trend: rather than engaging in substantive debates, some political actors resort to framing the Constitution as a static, untouchable relic. They present any amendment or reinterpretation as an affront to democracy, ignoring the inherent dynamism of the document. By doing so, they not only undermine its adaptability but also cast unwarranted aspersions on democratic institutions like the judiciary, which has consistently upheld constitutional principles.
A Dynamic and Evolving Framework
The framers of India’s Constitution were acutely aware that a static document would fail to address the evolving needs of a diverse and dynamic society. Hence, they embedded provisions for amendments to ensure its relevance across generations. Over 106 amendments in 75 years, including changes to the Preamble, attest to this foresight. Each amendment reflects the collective will of the people, as expressed through their representatives, and demonstrates the Constitution’s capacity to evolve while upholding its foundational values.
Critics often overlook this adaptability. For instance, measures aimed at promoting national unity or rectifying historical inequities are dismissed as unconstitutional, despite their alignment with the Constitution’s overarching goals. Articles like 19(2) and 31C explicitly permit reasonable restrictions on individual freedoms to safeguard national sovereignty and integrity. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has repeatedly reinforced this balance, striking down unconstitutional policies while accommodating necessary reforms.
The Judiciary as a Constitutional Safeguard
The Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution cannot be overstated. From landmark judgments that expanded fundamental rights to recent rulings upholding contentious laws, the judiciary has demonstrated its independence and resilience. For instance, the Court recently upheld the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004 overturning a High Court decision that declared it unconstitutional. Such rulings underscore the judiciary’s effectiveness in interpreting and protecting the Constitution.
Given this robust mechanism for oversight, allegations of constitutional dilution often appear more politically motivated than legally substantiated. The relentless invocation of the Constitution as a weapon in political battles reflects not a genuine concern for its integrity but a deeper malaise—a lack of substantive governance issues and a disconnect from the evolving aspirations of the electorate.
National Unity and Constitutional Values
Nationalism and constitutionalism are not mutually exclusive; they are, in fact, deeply intertwined. The Constitution enshrines ideals of unity and sovereignty, placing them at the core of the Republic. Efforts to harmonize the social fabric or address disparities—whether through a Common Civil Code or affirmative action—are inherently constitutional, provided they adhere to democratic norms and judicial scrutiny.
Critics who dismiss such measures as “majoritarian” fail to acknowledge the Constitution’s commitment to an inclusive and equitable society. Far from undermining diversity, these initiatives aim to build a cohesive national identity that transcends divisive fault lines. Dismissing them as unconstitutional not only distorts the intent of the framers but also risks perpetuating the very inequalities the Constitution seeks to redress.
Conclusion: Preserving the Constitution’s Sanctity
As India celebrates 75 years of its Constitution, it is imperative to reaffirm its role as a living document—dynamic, inclusive, and resilient. The recent trend of weaponizing the Constitution for political gain undermines its sanctity and risks eroding public trust in the institutions that safeguard democracy. It is the collective responsibility of citizens, political leaders, and institutions to ensure that the Constitution remains a shield for national unity and progress, not a weapon of division.
India’s Constitution is more than a legal framework; it is a testament to the nation’s resilience, diversity, and aspirations. It merits honour and sanctity, not getting reduced to a tool for partisan battles. Some recent tendencies, both contrived and conceited, are unfortunate. They need to be countered forcefully and effectively. India’s integrity and sovereignty must not be threatened by unprincipled expediency and political chicanery.
scribo ad LX 