The Making of the Indian Constitution

The Making of the Indian Constitution: A Monument to Democratic Vision

The Indian Constitution stands as one of the world’s most remarkable democratic achievements, a testament to the vision, commitment, and compromise of its framers. Adopted on November 26, 1949, and brought into force on January 26, 1950, this longest written constitution in the world transformed India from a colonial dominion into a sovereign, democratic republic. The journey of its creation reveals not merely a legal document but a profound statement about democracy, social justice, and the aspiration of a newly independent nation.

The Genesis of Constitution-Making

The Constituent Assembly of India was formally established on December 6, 1946, following the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 1946. What began with an initial strength of 389 members (eventually reduced to 299 after the departure of representatives from areas that became Pakistan) embarked upon a historic three-year journey to draft a constitution for independent India.​

The formal task of constitution-making commenced on December 13, 1946, when Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly. This resolution served as the ideological blueprint for the entire constitutional enterprise, declaring India as an independent, sovereign, democratic republic and establishing the fundamental principles that would guide the Assembly’s work. Nehru’s speech was deeply philosophical and visionary, emphasizing the importance of equality, freedom, and social justice as the cornerstones upon which the new nation would be built.​

The Objectives Resolution outlined critical foundational elements that would eventually crystallize in the Preamble of the Constitution: sovereignty and independence of India, derivation of all governmental power from the people, guarantees of justice (social, economic, and political), assurance of liberty of thought and expression, equality before law, and commitment to world peace. When the Constituent Assembly adopted this Resolution on January 22, 1947, it had set a clear moral and ideological direction for the constitution-making process.​

Dr. Ambedkar’s Pivotal Role

The most influential figure in the drafting process was Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who was appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee on August 29, 1947. His ascent to this crucial position would prove transformative for the constitutional framework that emerged.​

Dr. Ambedkar’s selection was not without its own poignancy. When the Assembly elected him to the Drafting Committee and subsequently as its Chairman, Ambedkar reflected with evident humility on his unexpected elevation: “I came into the Constituent Assembly with no greater aspiration than to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Castes. I had not the remotest idea that I would be called upon to undertake more responsible functions.” Yet once chosen, he brought unparalleled energy, scholarship, and commitment to the work.​

Ambedkar’s vision extended far beyond mere legal drafting. He saw the Constitution as an instrument to dismantle the caste-based hierarchies that had plagued Indian society for millennia and to establish a framework for substantive equality and dignity for all citizens. His masterwork, submitted to the Constituent Assembly, was the memorandum titled “States and Minorities,” which functioned almost as a mini-constitution in itself, framing strong constitutional protections for the Scheduled Caste community, advocating for reservations in public employment and legislature, and calling for safeguards for religious and cultural minorities.​

Ambedkar’s interventions and speeches throughout the Assembly proceedings were marked by meticulous research, rigorous logic, and scrupulously reasoned arguments. He defended draft provisions with eloquence and won the respect of Assembly members through the force of his intellectual leadership. His presence ensured that the voice of the marginalized and oppressed was not merely acknowledged but genuinely incorporated into the constitutional architecture.​

The Drafting Process: A Monumental Undertaking

The Drafting Committee, consisting of seven members beyond Ambedkar—K.M. Munshi, Muhammed Sadulla, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Devi Prasad Khaitan, and B.L. Mitter—worked with extraordinary diligence. The Committee met for 141 days, deliberating extensively on every aspect of the constitutional framework.​

The Constitutional Advisor, Benegal Narsing Rau, had prepared the initial draft comprising 243 articles and 13 schedules, which served as the foundation upon which the Drafting Committee built its work. Through careful deliberation and amendment, the Committee’s first draft contained 315 articles and 8 schedules—a substantial expansion reflecting the complexity of India’s constitutional needs.​

On November 4, 1948, Dr. Ambedkar presented the Draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly in a landmark speech that outlined the foundational principles and addressed major constitutional provisions. The presentation of the draft marked a pivotal moment in India’s constitution-making journey, as it moved from theoretical deliberation to the concrete examination of specific constitutional articles and provisions.​

The Assembly then engaged in an intensive first reading, where a clause-by-clause discussion was conducted from November 4, 1948, through October 17, 1949. This reading occupied 101 days of deliberation, during which members discussed every article and proposed amendments. Remarkably, approximately 7,635 amendments were tabled, of which 2,473 were actually moved in the House. This extraordinary volume of proposed changes testifies to the seriousness with which members approached their constitutional responsibility and the genuine democratic spirit of deliberation that characterized the proceedings.​

The debates during this period were substantive and far-reaching. Fundamental rights were debated for approximately 16 days, consuming about 14 percent of the clause-by-clause discussion, reflecting the primacy given to safeguarding individual freedoms in the new republic. The Directive Principles of State Policy received attention for about 6 days (approximately 4 percent), while citizenship provisions formed about 2 percent of the discussions. In total, approximately 36 lakh words were spoken during these deliberations, with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar having the distinction of speaking the most number of words—a reflection of his central role in defending and explaining the constitutional provisions.​

Critical Debates: Shaping a Democratic Republic

Several momentous debates during the Constituent Assembly proceedings shaped the eventual form of the Constitution and reflected deep philosophical and practical considerations about India’s democratic future.

Universal Adult Franchise: A Revolutionary Decision

Perhaps the most audacious decision made by the Constituent Assembly was the adoption of universal adult franchise—granting voting rights to all adult citizens irrespective of property, education, or income qualifications. This decision was made at one stroke, a revolutionary step that distinguished India from nearly all democratic nations, which had reached universal suffrage only after prolonged political struggles and gradual legislative expansion.​

The adoption of universal adult franchise was not inevitable. International observers expressed skepticism. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee was doubtful of India’s democratic arrangements, writing to Nehru about the troubles of Asian republics. Sir Ivor Jennings, the renowned English legal scholar, suggested that narrow franchises and indirect elections might be more prudent for newly independent nations. Many contemporaries believed that granting voting rights to a largely illiterate population would lead to democratic failure.​

Yet the Constituent Assembly rejected these pessimistic assessments. Members voted to immediately operationalize democratic institutions and affirmed their faith in the political capacities of Indians. This decision transcended mere constitutional provision; it represented a profound statement about India’s belief in democracy and the inherent dignity and capacity of every citizen. By the time the Constitution came into force, the Constituent Assembly Secretariat had prepared an electoral roll enfranchising 173 million citizens. In a remarkable achievement, the first general elections held between late 1951 and early 1952 successfully operationalized this universal adult franchise across the vast, diverse country.​

Federal Structure and Center-State Relations

The Constituent Assembly engaged in extensive debates regarding India’s federal structure and the distribution of powers between the Center and the States. Members debated fundamentals about how to maintain unity in a vast, multi-linguistic, multi-religious country while preserving space for regional autonomy and cultural diversity.​

The eventual federal structure represented a careful balance. The Constitution provided for a partition of legislative and executive authority between the Center and States not by any law passed by the Center but by the Constitution itself. This meant that States possessed independent powers, and Center and States stood as co-equals in their respective spheres. Yet, recognizing India’s vulnerability as a newly independent nation and the imperative for unified response to emergencies, the Constitution also provided overriding powers to the Center in emergencies—powers expressly confined to exceptional circumstances rather than constituting normal features of governance.​

Fundamental Rights and Social Justice

Extensive debates centered on the nature and scope of fundamental rights that would protect citizens from state tyranny and discrimination. The Assembly discussed fundamental rights for 16 days, consuming approximately 14 percent of all clause-by-clause discussion time.​

Ambedkar advocated forcefully for substantive protections for minorities and marginalized groups, submitting detailed proposals in “States and Minorities” regarding reservations in public employment and legislature in proportion to minority populations, and calling for establishment of a Commission for Minorities that would submit annual reports to Parliament. While not all of Ambedkar’s specific proposals were accepted in their entirety, the Constitution ultimately incorporated robust protections for vulnerable groups through reservations, non-discrimination clauses, and provisions specifically addressing the concerns of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.​

The Landmarks and Timeline of Constitution-Making

Several key events punctuated the constitution-making process:

• August 29, 1947: The Drafting Committee was appointed, with B.R. Ambedkar as Chairman

• July-October 1947: Preparation of the first draft by Constitutional Advisor B.N. Rau

• July 22, 1947: The Constituent Assembly adopted the National Flag

• October 1947-February 1948: The Drafting Committee deliberated and produced its draft Constitution

• February 21, 1948: The Drafting Committee submitted the draft containing 315 articles and 8 schedules

• November 4-9, 1948 (First Reading): The draft was presented to the Assembly for initial discussion

• November 15, 1948-October 17, 1949 (Second Reading): Clause-by-clause discussion was conducted, with extensive debates and amendments

• October 1949: The Drafting Committee, under Ambedkar’s leadership, revised the constitution based on Assembly decisions, renumbering articles and making textual refinements

• November 14-16, 1949: Third reading of the revised Constitution

• November 26, 1949: The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution

• January 24, 1950: Members of the Assembly signed the Constitution

• January 26, 1950: The Constitution came into force​

Addressing the Critics of the Constitution

The Indian Constitution faced substantial criticisms, both from contemporary observers and from subsequent analysts. Importantly, even Dr. Ambedkar himself, in his closing speech to the Constituent Assembly, anticipated and systematically addressed the major lines of criticism leveled against the constitutional document.

The “Borrowed Constitution” Critique

One significant criticism held that the Constitution was merely a “borrowed” or “patchwork” document, a “bag of borrowings” that lacked originality, heavily drawing from the Government of India Act of 1935 and other nations’ constitutions.​

Ambedkar acknowledged this borrowing but mounted a vigorous defense. He argued that drawing upon successful constitutional precedents and practices from other democracies was not a deficiency but a mark of intellectual honesty and practical wisdom. To reinvent constitutional solutions to age-old problems would be foolish when successful models existed. He emphasized that what mattered was not novelty for its own sake but adaptation of proven principles to India’s unique context and needs. The Constitution incorporated elements from the British parliamentary system, the American Bill of Rights, the Irish Constitution, and other democratic experiments—not because India lacked originality, but because these represented tested solutions to enduring constitutional challenges.​

Criticisms of Length and Complexity

Sir Ivor Jennings and other critics attacked the Constitution as overly lengthy, complex, and legalistic—a “lawyer’s paradise” unsuitable for ordinary citizens to understand. With over 400 articles (in its final form, 395 articles), the Indian Constitution vastly exceeded the length of other national constitutions.​

Ambedkar countered this criticism by emphasizing the necessity of length given India’s complexity. The American Constitution contained merely 7 articles (with the first four divided into 21 sections total), but America was a relatively homogeneous, developed nation with smaller territorial expanse and population. India, by contrast, was vast, extraordinarily diverse, multilingual, multireligious, and economically complex. Moreover, the Drafting Committee had consciously made the Constitution flexible to allow for future amendment, rather than imposing the seal of finality found in constitutions like Canada’s or the extraordinary amendment requirements of the American Constitution. The very length of the Constitution reflected its comprehensiveness and the care taken to address the multifaceted challenges facing a new, diverse republic.​

The Un-Gandhian Critique

Critics argued that the Constitution failed to incorporate Gandhian principles, particularly Gandhi’s vision of village-based governance, self-reliance (swaraj), and decentralized democracy. The Constitution was seen as overly legalistic and Western-oriented, divorced from India’s philosophical traditions.​

This criticism was particularly poignant because Gandhi had played such a towering role in India’s freedom struggle, and yet he was not directly represented in the Constituent Assembly (he was assassinated on January 30, 1948, during the Assembly’s deliberations). However, the Constitution’s preamble and foundational principles—liberty, equality, fraternity, justice—reflected the values Gandhi embodied, even if they did not manifest in specific structural provisions like gram swaraj as Gandhi had advocated.

The Centralization Critique

A serious complaint alleged excessive centralization, contending that the Constitution reduced States to municipalities and granted the Center too much power.​

Ambedkar’s defense of the federal structure was nuanced and substantial. He explained that the fundamental principle of federalism was the partition of legislative and executive authority between the Center and States by the Constitution itself, not at the pleasure of the Center. The Constitution, he argued, made the Center and States co-equal in their respective spheres. While it was true that the residuary powers (powers not explicitly assigned to either Center or States) were vested with the Center, and the Center did possess a large field of legislative authority, these features did not negate federalism’s essence.​

Furthermore, Ambedkar acknowledged and justified the emergency powers granted to the Center. These overriding powers, he explained, were not normal features of the Constitution but expressly confined to emergencies. They were necessary because in moments of national crisis, when the very existence of the nation was threatened, ultimate allegiance of citizens had to be to the Center and the common interests of the nation as a whole, not to parochial state interests. Without such emergency powers, a federal system would be untenable in crisis situations.​

The Representativeness Critique

Critics asserted that the Constituent Assembly itself lacked true representativeness, as it had been indirectly elected through provincial assemblies rather than through universal adult franchise, and its membership was dominated by lawyers and politicians.​

This criticism had merit in that the Assembly was not directly elected by universal adult suffrage—a limitation the Assembly itself recognized by its decision to implement universal adult franchise in the Constitution it produced, even though it had not been chosen through such franchise. Regarding the dominance of lawyers and politicians, critics argued this contributed to the Constitution’s bulkiness and legal complexity.​

However, the composition of the Assembly also represented genuine diversity of perspectives and backgrounds. It included women members like Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, V.G. Durgabai, Muthulakshmi Reddy, Begum Aizaz Rasul, and Annie Mascarene, whose speeches contributed significant perspectives on fundamental rights, the role of women, and constitutional safeguards. The Assembly included members from various linguistic, religious, and regional backgrounds, reflecting India’s diversity, and members with diverse political philosophies—from Communists to Socialists to Conservatives.​

The Constituent Assembly Speeches: Voices of Vision

The landmark speeches delivered during the Constituent Assembly proceedings reveal the intellectual and moral depth of the constitutional enterprise. These speeches were not perfunctory but reflected considered perspectives on fundamental questions of governance, justice, and democracy.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s Objectives Resolution speech on December 13, 1946, set the philosophical tone for all subsequent work. Nehru articulated a vision of India as an independent republic that would be sovereign, democratic, and committed to social justice. His speech emphasized that the Assembly derived its authority from the people and must remain responsive to the aspirations of the common people.​

Dr. Ambedkar’s speeches, particularly his presentation of the Draft Constitution on November 4, 1948, and his closing remarks on November 25, 1949, were among the most substantive and influential. In presenting the draft, he outlined the constitutional framework and its underlying philosophy. In his closing speech, he responded systematically to criticisms, explained the constitutional principles, and made a stirring plea for maintaining democratic values.​

His closing speech is particularly remarkable for what followed its formal text. Ambedkar used this occasion to articulate three imperatives for maintaining India’s democratic republic: (1) adherence to constitutional methods rather than revolutionary or unconstitutional means of seeking social and economic change; (2) resistance to hero-worship (bhakti) in politics, which he argued was a sure path to dictatorship; and (3) the transformation of political democracy into social democracy through the achievement of equality and fraternity alongside liberty.​

Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s thanksgiving speech on November 26, 1949, when the Constitution was finally adopted, acknowledged the challenges faced by the Constituent Assembly and expressed hope in the Constitution’s capacity to serve India’s democratic future. In his opening remarks as the first President of India on January 26, 1950, Prasad eloquently articulated his vision of a democratic India committed to preserving individual liberties and prosecuting “no man on the ground of his opinion or faith.”​

Women members of the Assembly, though a minority, delivered significant speeches that shaped constitutional provisions. Their interventions focused on ensuring gender equality in political participation, protecting women’s rights, challenging discriminatory practices, and advocating for constitutional remedies for fundamental rights violations.​

The Constitution’s Role in Indian Democracy

Nearly 75 years after its adoption, the Indian Constitution has proven itself instrumental in sustaining democracy in a country of extraordinary complexity and diversity. Its contributions to Indian democracy have been multifaceted and profound.

Establishing Democratic Legitimacy

The Constitution immediately conferred democratic legitimacy upon Indian governance. By establishing a sovereign, democratic republic with universal adult franchise, the Constitution transformed Indians from subjects of a British dominion into citizens of a democratic polity. The first general elections (1951-1952) successfully operationalized this franchise across a country of over 350 million people, most of them illiterate, establishing that democracy could function in contexts far removed from Western industrial societies.​

Protecting Fundamental Rights

The Constitution’s Part III, containing Fundamental Rights, provided substantive protections for individual freedoms and dignity. These rights—including right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, right to constitutional remedies for rights violations—created a framework within which citizens could challenge state tyranny and demand redress for violations.​

Over subsequent decades, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the reach and meaning of these fundamental rights through dynamic constitutional interpretation, reading into them rights not explicitly mentioned (like the right to privacy, right to education, right to life with dignity) and making them effective shields against both state and private action affecting citizens.​

Establishing Rule of Law

By creating a framework of constitutional governance with checks and balances, the Constitution established the principle that all authority—executive, legislative, and judicial—operates within constitutional boundaries. No branch of government can act arbitrarily or in violation of constitutional norms. This has meant that even in periods of political turmoil or near-breakdown, the Constitution has provided a framework within which conflicts could be resolved through legal and constitutional means rather than coercion.​

Managing Diversity

The Constitution provided mechanisms through which India’s extraordinary linguistic, religious, cultural, and regional diversity could be accommodated within a unified political framework. The federal structure allows states based on linguistic and regional lines to govern their internal affairs while remaining part of the Indian union. The incorporation of minority protections, secularism (as a governing principle, even before it was formally added to the Preamble), and reservations for historically disadvantaged groups created frameworks for inclusive governance.​

Enabling Democratic Contestation

The Constitution’s provisions for periodic elections, universal adult franchise, freedom of speech and association, parliamentary procedure, and constitutional amendments have enabled regular and peaceful contestation for political power. Multiple transitions of power between different political parties and coalitions have occurred, demonstrating the Constitution’s capacity to sustain democratic competition and rotation of power.​

Establishing Judicial Guardianship of Constitutional Values

The Constitution created an independent, hierarchical judiciary with the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of constitutional provisions. Over decades, the Indian Supreme Court has emerged as a forceful guardian of constitutional values, invalidating legislative and executive actions that violate constitutional norms, expanding the scope of fundamental rights, and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution over all branches of government.​

Conclusion

The making of the Indian Constitution represents one of history’s great democratic experiments. The Constituent Assembly’s three-year deliberation reflected both idealistic commitment to democracy and practical wisdom about the complexities of implementing democracy in a newly independent, vastly diverse, economically challenged nation.

Dr. Ambedkar’s leadership ensured that the Constitution would not merely establish democratic forms but would simultaneously address substantive inequalities rooted in caste, class, and religious discrimination. The Objectives Resolution provided the philosophical foundation. The extensive debates and millions of words spoken by Assembly members ensured that diverse perspectives and concerns were heard and, where possible, accommodated.

The criticisms leveled against the Constitution—regarding its borrowed nature, length, complexity, and centralization—reflect genuine philosophical tensions about the right balance between stability and flexibility, between central authority and federal autonomy, between individual rights and collective welfare. Rather than representing defects, these critiques point to the Constitution’s attempt to navigate real tensions in democratic governance.

What has emerged over 75 years of constitutional practice is that the Indian Constitution’s genius lies not in having provided perfect or final solutions to these tensions, but in having created a framework flexible enough to accommodate evolving interpretations while maintaining core commitments to democracy, equality, and justice. The Constitution can be amended (indeed, it has been amended over 100 times), interpreted by courts in response to new circumstances, and adapted through political practice and convention.

The Constituent Assembly’s greatest gift to India was not merely a document but a constitutional culture—a commitment to resolving political conflicts through democratic means, to protecting minority rights against majoritarian excess, to holding governments accountable to constitutional norms, and to believing that democracy could work even in contexts where many believed it would fail.

Today, India stands as the world’s largest functioning democracy, a testament not merely to the wisdom of the Constituent Assembly but also to the succeeding generations of Indians—political leaders, judges, civil servants, activists, and ordinary citizens—who have committed themselves to sustaining and strengthening the constitutional values that were so laboriously crafted in the Assembly hall between 1946 and 1949.

Indian Polity