National committee to review the working of the constitution
Answers
entire two-volume report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) has been made public through the Law Ministry website, it is time to take stock of the achievements and failures of the Commission. Hopefully, the report will be printed soon, tabled in the two Houses of Parliament and copies made available to Members of Parliament and the public.
As the Commission reports, its appointment by the President in February 2000 was preceded by "a persistent demand in civil society" that "the working of the Constitution be subjected to a comprehensive review". The ball was set rolling by two articles in The Times of India in December 1990 and June 1991, inter alia, suggesting the appointment of a Constitution Commission. A national committee headed by Karan Singh, a seminar jointly organised by 15 national organisations and an India International Centre project on the Working of the Constitution in 1992-93 also recommended setting up of a Review Commission.
As its name indicated, the brief of the NCRWC was to review the working of the Constitution and not to rewrite or review its provisions. A great deal of misunderstanding was caused simply by the Commission being wrongly called "Constitution Review Commission". The Commission's terms of reference excluded any tinkering with the parliamentary system or the basic structure of the Constitution. It is another matter that despite being repeatedly reminded by some members, the Commission may not have strictly kept these parameters in view.
To assess whether the objectives of our great founding fathers, as enshrined in the Constitution, had been fulfilled during 1950-2000, the Commission was expected to act independently and objectively, without fear or favour and in the spirit of serving the best interests of the country and thereby helping the Government and Parliament consider the desirable reforms. It was necessary to examine dispassionately the working of the chief organs of the state — the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
The composition of the 11-member Commission, however, was heavily weighted in favour of the Judiciary with as many as four retired judges. The sitting and a retired Attorney-General were also members. A journalist, a former Lok Sabha Speaker and sitting MP, two retired IAS officers and this writer completed the picture. In the context of its composition it was not surprising that several Commission members seemed anxious not to displease, in any way, the judges' constituency in particular and the fraternity of the legal profession generally.