Question

Why was universal adult franchise not followed in electing members to constituent assembly

Answer 1

On Sunday, the nation marked the 60th anniversary of the first sitting of its Parliament on May 13, 1952.

This is the time to remember the vision of its founding fathers, for whom democracy — unlike for those today who rarely vote, but get all the air time to denigrate the institution of Parliament and elected people's representatives — was an act of faith.

Moreover, they were clear that democracy meant universal adult suffrage and direct elections not just at the village or district Panchayat, but the highest levels of government. And the electorate had to include everyone, irrespective of community, class or educational attainment. To have projected that vision then — for a country of largely illiterate villagers — was nothing short of revolutionary.

STRUGGLE ALL THE WAY

On 23 October, 1928, when even the most advanced Western nations were still struggling with the idea, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, appearing before the Indian Statutory Commission (which came to be better known as Simon Commission), said he would like universal adult franchise for elections to be incorporated in the future Constitution of India.

The right to vote, at that time, was granted only to the rich, the landed and the tax payers. Dr Ambedkar, however, envisioned that elections were a weapon in the hands of the most oppressed sections of society for demanding politico-legal equality for the oppressed. Thus, while demanding reserved seats for Scheduled Castes — then referred to as Untouchables — he insisted upon franchise for criminal and hills tribes also.

Answer 2

firstly before knowing about this question there arises one more question that why should we follow a constitution made 50 years ago? this was because it doesn't give the importance to its own members only but also to the everyone. secondly it promotes equal to all people it promotes Universal adult franchise . if this Universal adult franchise was not there the constituent assembly could not have been chosen directly by all the people of India. it was elected mainly by the members of the existing provincial legislatures. this ensured a fair geographical share of members from all the region of the country. the assembly was dominated by the Indian National Congress the party that lead India's freedom struggle. but the Congress itself included a variety of political groups and opinions. the assembly had many members who did not agree with the Congress. in social terms too the Assembly represented members from different language, groups, castes, classes, religions occupations . even if the constituent assembly was elected by universal adult franchise, if composition would not have been very different.
no matter how big the answer is . read it understand and then mark brainliest
hopefully you will......