Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
A. It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen.
B. It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government.
C. It ensures that good people come to power.
D. It gives expression to some shared values.
the constitution is responsible for the framework of distribution of power and not for the personal integrity and quality of the people who occupy the positions of power in the government. It formulates the legal framework for the country and has no control on the people who take up the responsibility.
Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
A. The constitution was framed before the parliament came into being.
B. The constitution makers were more eminent leaders than the members of the parliament.
C. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
D. The constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.
The constitution provides a framework within which a government of the concerned country has to work. It is the source of authority for the parliament. It lays down the powers of different organs of the government as well as different authorities and keeps a check on them.
State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.
A. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.
B. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.
C. Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.
D. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
A. True
Explanation- A constitution is set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. It lays down rules and regulations for the government and its working body. All these rules are written down into a single document or set of legal documents may be said to embody a written constitution in its detailed provisions.
B. False
Explanation- Constitution is a set of rules and regulations that are laid out for the government or any authority in power. It is not necessary for the constitution to only be in democratic countries. It is required everywhere and has its own significance. In a liberal democracy a constitution imposes rules and divides power between different branches and institutions in order to protect the citizens from the state. In a dictatorship, a constitution as it confers political legitimacy to the ruler or ruling party. It sets the ideological tone of the constitution. It increases the power of the state, specifically by creating bureaucracies and not separating the different branches of government.
C. False
Explanation- Constitution is not just a legal document but it also deals with ideals and values. The constitution reflects certain values that form the core of the political system. These values guide not only the government, but also the citizens and the society at large. The values expressed in the Preamble are expressed as objectives of the constitution. These are: sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republican character of Indian State, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, human dignity and the unity and integrity of the nation.
D. True
Explanation- Constitution gives its citizens a new identity Indian as it has provision for single citizenship. It means that every Indian is a citizen of India, irrespective of the place of his/her residence or both in the county. This is unlike the United States of America where there is the system of double citizenship. A person is a citizen of a state where he/she lives as well as he/she is a citizen of U.S.A. This provision in the Indian constitution defiantly reinforces the values of equality, unity and integrity.
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
A. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens.
B. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.
C. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
A. Members of the assembly were not elected by universal suffrage; there was severe effort to make the assembly a representative body. The members of all religions, province and social and economic groups were given representation. The assembly had members from scheduled castes as well. In term of political parties, the congress dominated the assembly occupying. The congress itself was a diverse party it managed to have room for all shades and of opinions within it. So, it’s incorrect to say that the constituent assembly did not represent the Indian people.
B. It is incorrect to say that constitution making did not involve any major decision among the leaders at the time of basic framework. There were several arguments, debates and discussion on most of the provisions. Each clause was subjected to inspection and debate. Mahatma Gandhi and B.R Ambedkar had different views on minorities and untouchables focused on ‘Constitutional Morality’. Other leaders had their own consensus and arguments, thus major decision making did took place considering all the factors of the society. Our constitution is not just web of rules but a moral commitment to begin a government that will accomplish promises that were made before to the people.
C. It is incorrect to say that there was little originality in the constitution though the framers were not averse to borrowing from other constitutional traditions. They borrowed a 90 percent of provisions from constitutions of different countries. India borrowed ideas from the constitution of Britain, US, Irish, France etc. Ideas or a feature which were borrowed was critically examined about its aptness to the conditions prevailing in India. While drawing the ideas its efficiency and problems of Indian people were considered.
Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:
A. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.
B. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
C. The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.
A. The following two factors move the leaders who made the constitution credibly:
1. The members of the constituent assembly ensured that they represented almost every sect of religion as well as different section soft h society including the scheduled caste and minorities. There were twenty-six scheduled caste members from Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim communities. Members of each community elected each representative in the provincial legislative assembly through the method of proportional representation.
2. The provinces and princely states were allotted seats in proportion to their population. Members of the constituent assembly like Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Ambedkar were also a part of the national movement and enjoy great credibility among masses.
B. The constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it:
1. There is an exclusive working pact of the institution of government of the constitution. This arrangement is based on the check and balance approach. The constitution has horizontally distributed power among different organs of government that is legislature, executive and judiciary. It also had laid down functions of statutory body like the election commission. If one institution tries to contravene its limit, other two check it.
2. There is a laid elaboration of the procedure of amendment of the different articles of the constitution. The constitution strikes a balance between change and the nature of change that can be made. Thus, it is neither too rigid nor too flexible and survives as a living document that has the respect of the people.
C. The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and an aspiration, following two features of the Indian constitution exemplifies it:
1. The constitution of India has listed certain rights termed as the Fundamental rights and particularly protected them. These fundamental rights have various rights to ensure individual’s freedom. It has right to freedom, expression, constitutional remedies, etc. There is also a judiciary which has powers and responsibility to protect the fundamental rights by the government and the legislative and look after the people’s judicial matter.
2. The constitution of India had laid down some social and moral guidelines called the Directive Principles of state policy which though non-justifiable have moral force behind them to ensure that government would take them sincerely. It is not enforceable by low but provides a social and moral framework for the people to abode, cleaning the environment, helping people to gain their right is included in the directive principles.
Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
It is necessary for a country have a clear demarcation of powers responsibility in the constitution because demarcation allows the institution to work efficiently without any interference from the other institution and overlapping of the power and responsibility. Powers institution like the legislature, the executive the judiciary and even independent statutory bodies like the election commission demarcated.
It is to ensure that no single institution acquires monopoly of power. In the absence of demarcation of fundamental rights there would problem to the citizens and the laws will unjust and unfair. A constitution is to specify has the power to make decisions in a society. In a democratic, it set some limits on what a government can improve on its citizens. These limits are fundamental the sense that government may never intrude them. The constitution show how organs of government should relate to each other. In the countries with federal structure judiciary plays an important role to maintain just environment. To avoid power overlapping and clash demarcation of power and responsibility is important in the constitution.
Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
One of the most important function of a constitution is to set some limit on the rulers. It is necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers because absence of limitations would lead to authoritarian form of government that threatens human rights. The most common way of limiting the power of the government is to specify certain fundamental rights. Citizens will normally have some basic rights of liberties: right to freedom, right to association, right to conduct trade, business, etc. These freedoms of the people could not be checked by the government. But during the national emergency or in national interest these rights may be withdrawn. The rulers and the government can impose some limitations on its citizen. In all the types of constitution whether in the form of referendum, maintain or mandate people hold some sort of power, the level may vary. Thus, it’s not possible for a constitution to exist that gives no power at all to the citizens. The institutions of the state that are meant to serve the citizens would end up denying them their right in such tough scenario.
The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
The Japanese constitution was made when the US army occupation was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. The constitution which is influenced by external factors does not represent the will, goal and aspirations of the citizens of the country. Citizens have little participation and it also compromises on the county’s soverignity. Thus, in many ways it is an enforced constitution.
The Indian experience of constitution-making was different as it was based upon ideologies that were influenced by nationalist movement. Sovereignty and freedom were the main goals of the nationalist movements that gave away ideals of equality, fraternity, and secularism. All these characters are mentioned and practiced in the Indian constitution.
The Indian constitution was made by the constituent assembly which had been elected for the undivided India. It was thought that the constitution should be such to enable the government to fulfil the aspirations of the society. The constitution of India had established a federation with unitary basis. A powerful and independent judiciary was established. Bicameral legislature was adopted. Our constitutional framers have laid down rules and regulations which provide equalities of all sort i.e., political, social and legal.
Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty-year-old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why I should obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
If I would have been the teacher I would answer Rajat that the Indian constitution is a blend of flexibility and rigidity. Though our constitution is old, but still not outdated. It has been amended more than 90 times and has been modified time to time according to the need of people and the situation of the society.
This constitution was framed by the constituent assembly. There was a serious attempt to make the assembly as a representative body by including people from all walks of life. The only possible way is to form a representative body which reflects all communities, classes and all regions of a country. The ideals of secularism, equality and fraternity are important to create a just society.
Initially congress dominated the assembly as congress itself was such a diverse party it managed to accommodate all shades of opinion within it later we saw a shift in the political party structure of India to multi party and coalition government.
The constitution was made by credible leaders and their final authorities are the India people it is not important that everybody is straight consulted for making constitution. The constitution has the provision of amendments to ensure that it keeps up with the changing requirements of changing times, without compromising on its basic structure. It creates a positive atmosphere for the people to live freely and on their own independence choice.
In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:
A. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.
B. Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.
C. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position? Ans. In this conversation of three people it has been discussed whether the working of our constitution is fruitful or not:-
A. Harbans gave his own impression that the Indian constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government, his position was correct. The makers of the constitution presented a document in the form of our constitution that enshrines fundamental values and highest aspirations shared by the people making it an existing reality. It is a document consisting supreme and fundamental laws of the country and handles the composition, power and functions of the government. Indian constitution provides different types of preserve and liberties to Indian citizens, rule of law, fundamental rights, etc. Democracy has been adopted in India and to toughen it. Adult franchise has been introduced in India to ensure equality. It has been tried in the constitution to establish a system of ideal democracy in principle. But in it is suffering from social and economic evils.
B. Neha had an impression that the constitution made serious promise of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the constitution has failed. These goals are not static buy dynamic in process. Our constitution is a unique document which accommodates the aspiration of people of the India. Equality of all and freedom of the citizens is being disturbed by the people with power and money. The political leaders are playing the politics caste and religion to use this as their vote bank. The court of judiciary has to impede in the working of the executive and the legislature. Other problem of terrorism ad illegal immigrants has added to the inability. Thus, it is right to say by Neha that goals are not achieved, and the constitution has failed to fulfil the needs of the individuals.
C. Nazima has said the constitution has not failed us. The constitution provides us with proper governance and adequate principles to govern the country. We have not applied our efforts fulfil the promises of our citizens. Corruption in politics as well as in public sector is increasing. People responsible for executing and implementing these principles in the constitution have failed due to their dishonesty and self-interest. The citizens should be vigilant and aware. They must be active in public and participate more in political affairs. They should cooperate with the government in its entire good works. The citizens should also be educated, and social and economic inequality should be restricted.