Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.[

An important criticism of the Indian Constitution is that it is unrepresentative. Indian Constitution was framed by a Constituent Assembly constituted in November, 1946 through indirect election of its members by provincial legislatures under the provisions of Cabinet Mission Plan 1946. The Assembly consisted of a total 389 members of which 292 were to be elected from the Provinces, 93 were to be nominated from Princely States and four members were to be nominated from Chief Commissioner's areas. Each Provincial Assembly elected its members for the Constituent Assembly through the single transferable vote system. The method of representation in Princely States was to be decided with their consultation. The Mount Batten Plan of 3rd June 1947 announced partition of the country. So the membership of the Indian Constituent Assembly was reduced to 299 after partition and only 284 members signed the Constitution on 26 Nov. 1949.

Some constitutional experts do not recognize the Constituent Assembly as sovereign body as it was created through the proposals of British Government. But after India became independent on Aug. 15, 1947, the Constituent Assembly functioned as sovereign entity for all practical purposes. Hence we see that Indian Constitution is indeed unrepresentative because the members of the Constituent Assembly were chosen by a restricted franchise and not by universal suffrage. But if we see and read the debate, that took place in the Constituent Assembly, we find that a vast range of issues and opinions were mentioned, members raised matters related to various social sections.