“The critical thought of Lakshminarayan Sahu proved wrong by history of the Indian Constitution ? “How so? Give some arguments.

It is not uncommon for nations to rewrite their constitution in response to changed circumstances or change of ideals within the society or even due to political upheavals. Former Soviet Union (or USSR) and France are good examples in this regard (N.B. students can refer to TB page 197 for more detail).

But as far as India is concerned it did not happen so (i) The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 November, 1949. Its implementation formerly stated from 26 January 1950. More than fifty-eight years after that the same Constitution continues to function as the framework within which the government of our country operates.

Is it an constitution so good that it needs no change? Was it that our Constitution markers were so farsighted and wise that they had foreseen all the changes that would take place in the future?

In some sense both the above answers are correct.

1. It is true that we have inherited a very robust constitution. The basic framework of the constitution is very much suited to our country.

2. It is also true and a hard fact that the constitution framers were very forsighted and intelligent. They provided for several solutions for future situations.

However, it is also a fact that no constitution can provide for all eventualities, no document can be such that it needs no change. Our Constitution is a living document. It accepts the necessity of modification according to changing needs of the society. Secondly, in the actual working of the constitution, there has been enough flexibility of interpretations. Both political practice and judicial rulings have shown maturity and flexibility in implementing the Constitution.