External influences in formation of indian constituion
Answers
Answered by
0
The Constitution of India was framed by a Constituent Assembly set up under the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. The Assembly consisted of 389 members representing provinces (292), states (93), the Chief Commissioner Provinces and Baluchistan ..
The Assembly held its first meeting on December 9, 1946, and elected Dr. Sachhidanand Sinha, the oldest member of the Assembly as the Provisional President. On December 11, 1946, the Assembly elected Dr Rajendra Prasad as its permanent Chairman.
The strength of the Assembly was reduced to 299 (229 representing the provinces and 70 representing the states) following withdrawal of the Muslim League members after the partition of the country.
Answered by
3
I. Seminal Sources:
These are those sources which were responsible for influencing the framing of the constitution of India. The fathers of the constitution ransacked top constitutions of the world and adopted those features which they considered suitable to the genius of the country. These sources already existed. We only owned them from foreign sources.
They are as follows:
(A) Government of India Act 1935:
A critic has portrayed the Indian constitution “as a glorified edition of the 1935 Act”. Robert Hardgrave is of the view that out of 395 articles 250 articles are such which have either been adopted in toto from 1935 Act or have been slightly amended and then adopted. Dr. D.D. Basu also holds similar opinion. He feels that 75 per cent/ of the Indian constitution has been adopted from the Articles of 1935 Act.
Dr. Jennings remarks, “The Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act of 1935 from which in fact many of the provisions are copied almost textually”. Articles 256, 351, 352, 353, 356 are carbon copies of sections 126, 107, 102 and 93 of 1935 Act respectively. The federal system of government, the autonomy of units, the three lists, the reservation of seats for backward classes, the constitutional relations between the states and the centre, and the Federal Judiciary are borrowed from the Act of 1935.
Srinivesan aptly remarks, “both in language and substance it is a close copy of the Act of 1935.” In fact, the size, the contents, arrangements of provisions in the Indian constitution bear close resemblances to Government of India Act 1935. Dr. Panjab Rao Deshmukh said, “The constitution is essentially the Government of India Act with only adult franchise added.” Though we have drawn tremendously from the Act of 1935, yet the difference between the two cannot be easily ignored.
Difference between Indian Constitution and Act of 1935:
(i) The Act of 1935 was a creation of an alien parliament whereas Indian Constitution is a fundamental law framed by a free nation to shape its destiny.
(ii) Separate Electorates which sowed the seeds of dissensions was the keystone of the Act of 1935. The Indian Constitution abolished separate electorates and substituted joint electorates in their place, though with reservation of seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and also special provision for Anglo Indians.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) The Act of 1935 gave right to vote only to 14 per cent of the population. The Constitution of India introduced universal adult franchise.
(iv) There was no provision of Fundamental Rights in the Act of 1935. Articles 298 and 299 made only a mention of few rights.
(v) The act of 1935′ did not make mention of ideals to be followed by the Government.
(vi) The Act of 1935 did not confer right of self government on the princely states (Indian India). The Constitution of India abolished the distinction between Indian India and British India (Indian provinces) and brought the entire country under single uniform policy. Process of Integration and democratization of states reduced about 500 princely states into a few units under the Indian Government. The autocratic rulers of states of the British times were replaced by democratically elected ministers.
(vii) The Act of 1935 had vested lot of discretionary powers with the Governor General at the Centre and to the Governors in the Provinces. Besides, they were vested with ‘special responsibilities’, in the fulfillment of which they could consult the ministers but were allowed to act according to their Individual judgement. The Indian Constitution abolishes such discretionary powers of the Heads both at the centre and in the states and does not vest with them the special responsibilities which previously allowed their counterparts to exercise individual judgement.
(viii) The Act of 1935 did not empower central or state legislatures to effect amendment in the Act. The requisite power was vested with the British Parliament. The Indian Constitution vests this power with the Parliament and also the state assemblies in certain vital matters.
(ix) The Act of 1935 set up Federal Court but the final appellate authority was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Constitution of India on the other hand vests supreme judicial authority with the Supreme Court, whose decisions are final. The differences pointed out above reflect that we did take certain provisions of the 1935 Act but we modified them according to our circumstances and exigencies of times.
(B) Influence of Foreign Constitutions:
An analysis of the Indian Constitution reveals that it has been substantially influenced by well framed constitutions of some of the developed democracies of the world.
These are those sources which were responsible for influencing the framing of the constitution of India. The fathers of the constitution ransacked top constitutions of the world and adopted those features which they considered suitable to the genius of the country. These sources already existed. We only owned them from foreign sources.
They are as follows:
(A) Government of India Act 1935:
A critic has portrayed the Indian constitution “as a glorified edition of the 1935 Act”. Robert Hardgrave is of the view that out of 395 articles 250 articles are such which have either been adopted in toto from 1935 Act or have been slightly amended and then adopted. Dr. D.D. Basu also holds similar opinion. He feels that 75 per cent/ of the Indian constitution has been adopted from the Articles of 1935 Act.
Dr. Jennings remarks, “The Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act of 1935 from which in fact many of the provisions are copied almost textually”. Articles 256, 351, 352, 353, 356 are carbon copies of sections 126, 107, 102 and 93 of 1935 Act respectively. The federal system of government, the autonomy of units, the three lists, the reservation of seats for backward classes, the constitutional relations between the states and the centre, and the Federal Judiciary are borrowed from the Act of 1935.
Srinivesan aptly remarks, “both in language and substance it is a close copy of the Act of 1935.” In fact, the size, the contents, arrangements of provisions in the Indian constitution bear close resemblances to Government of India Act 1935. Dr. Panjab Rao Deshmukh said, “The constitution is essentially the Government of India Act with only adult franchise added.” Though we have drawn tremendously from the Act of 1935, yet the difference between the two cannot be easily ignored.
Difference between Indian Constitution and Act of 1935:
(i) The Act of 1935 was a creation of an alien parliament whereas Indian Constitution is a fundamental law framed by a free nation to shape its destiny.
(ii) Separate Electorates which sowed the seeds of dissensions was the keystone of the Act of 1935. The Indian Constitution abolished separate electorates and substituted joint electorates in their place, though with reservation of seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and also special provision for Anglo Indians.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) The Act of 1935 gave right to vote only to 14 per cent of the population. The Constitution of India introduced universal adult franchise.
(iv) There was no provision of Fundamental Rights in the Act of 1935. Articles 298 and 299 made only a mention of few rights.
(v) The act of 1935′ did not make mention of ideals to be followed by the Government.
(vi) The Act of 1935 did not confer right of self government on the princely states (Indian India). The Constitution of India abolished the distinction between Indian India and British India (Indian provinces) and brought the entire country under single uniform policy. Process of Integration and democratization of states reduced about 500 princely states into a few units under the Indian Government. The autocratic rulers of states of the British times were replaced by democratically elected ministers.
(vii) The Act of 1935 had vested lot of discretionary powers with the Governor General at the Centre and to the Governors in the Provinces. Besides, they were vested with ‘special responsibilities’, in the fulfillment of which they could consult the ministers but were allowed to act according to their Individual judgement. The Indian Constitution abolishes such discretionary powers of the Heads both at the centre and in the states and does not vest with them the special responsibilities which previously allowed their counterparts to exercise individual judgement.
(viii) The Act of 1935 did not empower central or state legislatures to effect amendment in the Act. The requisite power was vested with the British Parliament. The Indian Constitution vests this power with the Parliament and also the state assemblies in certain vital matters.
(ix) The Act of 1935 set up Federal Court but the final appellate authority was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Constitution of India on the other hand vests supreme judicial authority with the Supreme Court, whose decisions are final. The differences pointed out above reflect that we did take certain provisions of the 1935 Act but we modified them according to our circumstances and exigencies of times.
(B) Influence of Foreign Constitutions:
An analysis of the Indian Constitution reveals that it has been substantially influenced by well framed constitutions of some of the developed democracies of the world.
Similar questions