From 'we the people' to knowing the Constitution

The Indian Constitution begins with the iconic phrase ‘we the people’. The phrase reflects the democratic nature of the country and the power bestowed on its citizens. India’s ‘we the people’, however, are not a homogeneous category but a heterogeneous, plural population that speaks many languages, follows many religions and belongs to diverse economic backgrounds, sects and communities, each with its distinct style of life. The Constitution had the task of chiselling the nation. How far has it secured these rights, and more importantly, how much constitutional literacy has it achieved? This is a question that is worth pondering. 

Seventy-six years ago, the founding members had the daunting task of preparing a Constitution that would unify the princely states and provinces into a single, territorially bound country and safeguard the rights of all its citizens equally. The drafting process did not emerge from a vacuum; inspiration was drawn from various other constitutions. However, the political and economic setup of these countries was vastly different from the Indian context.

The Constituent Assembly bequeathed the responsibility of implementing the ideals of the Constitution to the future Parliament and the courts. The nascent days of Indian democracy saw clashes of ideologies, especially between the fundamental rights of the individual and the collective rights of the people. The Constitution had the task of securing the individual economic and ownership rights of the citizens; at the same time, it had to implement social welfare provisions that would benefit society collectively. To a fair extent, the Constitution is malleable and ductile. 

It has seen 106 amendments and countless landmark judgments to reach its present shape and form. At times, the amendments have altered the core identity of the Constitution; at other times, they have also strived to expand the rights it guarantees. Many of the newer additions were possible, thanks to the intervention of the courts at important junctures. In that sense, the Constitution is not a stagnant document but a living and breathing document. The Constitution houses several rights which were not part of the original document that was adopted seventy-six years ago. But the bigger question is how much of the Constitution has been integrated into the day-to-day lives of its citizens. 

There have been several critiques against the Indian Constitution, but the primary criticism is that it was written in a language which was not understood by many of the citizens whom it intends to protect. The original document was drafted only in English and in Hindi. This criticism is valid even today, as a majority of the population fail to understand the rights and obligations that are enshrined in the Constitution. Although measures have been taken to print it in all its twenty-two official languages, it has not yet achieved the success of increasing the awareness about it to its citizens. 

Further, the Constitution is criticised as a lawyer-made document. The majority of its makers were lawyers. Even the books that elucidate the Constitution are written by lawyers peppered with judicial decisions and maxims. This has acted as a barrier for a non-lawyer to understand the Constitution. The document is not meant to be understood only by the judges of the topmost court but also by the common man without judicial training. The awareness about the Constitution has not gained inroads into the life of the common man yet.

When citizens are not aware of the rights and obligations guaranteed by the Constitution, they are left without any meaningful protection. This reduces the major ideals of the Constitution, such as ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’, to abstract concepts that are discussed within the hallowed court halls by the educated few in society. The values that nourish the Constitution ought to have become common knowledge by now; this applies to both the intellectual and the common man of the country. 

The Constitution has attempted to study the problem of minorities in India and has attempted to safeguard their rights, yet the worrisome situation is several linguistic and economically underprivileged citizens are not yet aware of the rights that are secured in the Constitution. This is not merely an economic problem within the society, but it is a social issue that continues to exist in the country. 

Eugen Ehrich in the early twentieth century wrote the living law theory, which states that the law’s true centre of gravity is not in the statute books but in the customs and practises followed by the members of the society through non-state institutions such as family and businesses. People live their lives by certain social rules of conduct which they recognise as binding. He describes it as the ‘inner order of association’. Ehrlich argues that in order to be effective, there needs to be consistency between living law and juristic law. And this cannot be a top-down exercise but a process that involves the collaborative association of ordinary people. 

The Constitution of India is a result of different groups—both mainstream and vulnerable—making their voices heard in laying the foundational principles that would govern the country. In India, the values enshrined in the Constitution are yet to penetrate the non-State institutions across the country equally. Being uninformed about the constitutional principles only serves to weaken democracy, and this asymmetrical difference has to be bridged. 

(The writers are assistant professors at KIIT School of Law)