1. Introduction #
The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into force on 26 January 1950. It is regarded as the longest written Constitution among sovereign countries because it deals not only with broad constitutional principles but also with detailed administrative and governance structures.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar emphasized that the Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is also a social instrument meant to transform society from inequality to equality.
2. Salient Features #
(A) Written and Detailed Constitution #
India has a comprehensive written Constitution. It originally had 395 Articles and 8 Schedules, and it has expanded substantially through amendments and insertions.
Standard references commonly describe it as having about 448 Articles in 25 Parts and 12 Schedules (the count varies by method, but the point remains that it is highly detailed and extensive).
Its detail also reflects the influence of the Government of India Act, 1935, particularly on federal structure, administration, and emergency framework.
(B) Blend of Borrowed Features and Indian Innovations (Sources of the Constitution) #
The Constitution borrows from world constitutions and adapts those features to Indian needs. Major influences include:
-
UK: Parliamentary government, cabinet responsibility, rule of law, parliamentary privileges
-
USA: Fundamental rights, judicial review, independence of judiciary, impeachment
-
Canada: Strong Centre, residuary powers with Centre
-
Ireland: Directive Principles of State Policy
-
Australia: Concurrent List idea; freedom of trade and commerce; joint sitting concept is also often linked here in standard texts
-
Germany (Weimar): Emergency provisions (influence)
-
USSR: Social and economic justice orientation; Fundamental Duties are also commonly linked to socialist constitutions
-
France: Republican ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity)
-
South Africa: Amendment procedure model (commonly accepted attribution)
(C) Federal System with Unitary Bias (Quasi-Federal Character) #
India is described as a “Union of States” (Article 1), implying indestructible unity with States having important powers. Legislative subjects are divided through the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, Concurrent Lists). During Emergencies (Arts. 352–360) and through constitutional mechanisms such as Article 356, All-India Services, and an integrated judiciary, the system can function with a unitary tilt.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) / (1964) 1 SCR 371
Facts: Parliament enacted the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 enabling the Union to acquire coal-bearing lands (including lands/property interests connected with the State). West Bengal challenged the Union’s competence to acquire State-owned property and argued that the Union had no such overriding authority.
Issue: Whether Parliament can make a law enabling the Union to acquire property belonging to a State, and whether India is a strictly federal “compact” where the Centre cannot override States in such matters.
Held: Parliament has the power to legislate for acquisition for Union purposes; the constitutional scheme creates a Union with a strong Centre, and Indian federalism is not a classical U.S.-style federation based on an indestructible compact of States.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) (mention)
It reaffirmed limits on misuse of Article 356, and treated federalism and secularism as core constitutional commitments.
(D) Parliamentary Form of Government #
India follows the parliamentary executive model. The real executive power lies with the Council of Ministers, which is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Arts. 74–75 at Union; 163–164 at State).
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)
Facts: The Punjab Government, by executive action, undertook the business of publishing/printing/selling school textbooks, affecting private publishers who approached the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the executive can carry on such governmental business without a specific law authorising it, and whether such action violates constitutional limits (including freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g)).
Held: Executive power can be exercised in areas within legislative competence even without a specific statute, so long as it is not contrary to any law and does not infringe fundamental rights; the case is also relied upon to explain the working of the parliamentary executive under constitutional control.
(E) Single Citizenship #
India provides single citizenship (Arts. 5–11), promoting national unity and equal status of citizens across all States.
(F) Integrated and Independent Judiciary and Judicial Review #
India has an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex and High Courts in States. Independence is secured through tenure protections and constitutional safeguards. Judicial review is a core constitutional mechanism ensuring that State action conforms to constitutional limits.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (mention)
Facts: A petition challenged the constitutional validity of major constitutional amendments affecting property rights and Parliament’s amending power (notably the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments), contending that such changes could destroy constitutional guarantees.
Issue: Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 is unlimited, allowing it to amend any part of the Constitution so as to alter its identity.
Held: Parliament’s power to amend is wide but not unlimited; it cannot destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution (a doctrine whose content is guided significantly by the Constitution’s fundamental principles and values).
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) (mention)
Facts: The constitutional validity of Articles 323A/323B and provisions excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts/Supreme Court (under Arts. 226/227 and 32) in tribunal matters was challenged.
Issue: Whether Parliament can exclude/curtail the constitutional power of judicial review of High Courts and the Supreme Court by routing disputes exclusively through tribunals.
Held: Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226/227 is part of the basic structure; tribunals may function as courts of first instance in their domain, but their decisions are subject to scrutiny by High Courts, and the constitutional role of High Courts/Supreme Court cannot be ousted.
(G) Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Constitutional Remedies #
Fundamental Rights secure civil and political freedoms and are enforceable through Articles 32 and 226.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Government “in public interest” under the Passport Act, 1967; reasons were initially not disclosed, and she challenged the action under Article 32.
Issue: Whether impounding without fair procedure violates Articles 14, 19 and 21, and what “procedure established by law” in Article 21 requires.
Held: Articles 14, 19 and 21 are interrelated; any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy fairness and reasonableness, and the “procedure” under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable (strengthening natural justice and anti-arbitrariness).
(H) Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) #
Directive Principles aim at social and economic democracy. Though non-justiciable, they are fundamental in governance (Article 37).
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Constitutional amendments introduced by the 42nd Amendment expanded Article 31C and sought to limit judicial review, raising the question of constitutional balance between rights and directives.
Issue: Whether giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and restricting judicial review damages the basic structure.
Held: Harmony and balance between Parts III and IV is an essential feature of the Constitution; provisions that destroy this balance or exclude judicial review were held invalid as they violate the basic structure.
(I) Secular State #
India has no State religion and ensures freedom of conscience and religion (Arts. 25–28). “Secular” was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976), and secularism has been treated as a basic feature.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: President’s Rule was imposed in certain States under Article 356 after political developments, leading to challenges alleging mala fides and lack of constitutional breakdown; the Court examined the constitutional limits of Article 356.
Issue: Whether a Proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, and whether secularism/federalism impose constitutional constraints on State action and Centre’s intervention.
Held: A Proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable; secularism is a basic feature, and State governments acting contrary to secular constitutional mandates may attract constitutional consequences, though the power under Article 356 is not to be exercised arbitrarily.
(J) Universal Adult Franchise #
Article 326 provides for universal adult suffrage. The voting age is 18 years and above (61st Amendment, 1988).
(K) Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) #
Fundamental Duties were introduced by the 42nd Amendment (1976) under Article 51A to promote civic responsibility.
AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 (also reported as AIR 2001 SC 3262)
Facts: AIIMS provided a significant “in-house/institutional” preference in postgraduate medical admissions (notably around one-third), which was challenged as being unfair to more meritorious candidates from outside AIIMS.
Issue: Whether such institutional “reservation/preference” in postgraduate medical admissions is constitutionally permissible, particularly under Article 14 standards of equality and non-arbitrariness.
Held: Excessive institutional reservation at the postgraduate level was struck down as violative of equality principles; excellence and merit in higher/specialised medical education were emphasised, and only limited, well-justified institutional preference (if any) could be sustained within constitutional constraints.
(L) Emergency Provisions #
Articles 352, 356, and 360 provide for National, State, and Financial Emergencies. These provisions enable the Union to respond to extraordinary crises while remaining subject to constitutional limits and safeguards.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Facts: During the National Emergency (1975–77), detention orders were passed, and an order under Article 359 suspended the right to move courts for enforcement of certain fundamental rights; detenues sought habeas corpus relief.
Issue: Whether a writ of habeas corpus (or any judicial remedy) was maintainable to challenge detention during Emergency when enforcement of Article 21-related protection was treated as suspended.
Held: By majority, the Court held that during the Emergency (given the order under Article 359), courts could not entertain petitions challenging detention on the ground of violation of the right to life/personal liberty; Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, insisting on the rule of law and judicial protection against unlawful detention.
(M) Blend of Rigidity and Flexibility (Amendment) #
Article 368 provides different modes of amendment. Some provisions require special majority and, for certain matters, State ratification. This ensures stability along with adaptability.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980) (mention)
They establish that the amending power cannot destroy the basic structure.
(N) Independent Constitutional Bodies #
Independent bodies such as the Election Commission (Art. 324), Comptroller and Auditor General (Art. 148), UPSC (Art. 315), and Finance Commission (Art. 280) ensure impartiality, accountability, and constitutional governance.
T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Union of India (1995)
Facts: A law/measure provided for a multi-member Election Commission by appointing Election Commissioners alongside the Chief Election Commissioner; the CEC challenged aspects concerning the Commission’s structure and functioning.
Issue: Whether a multi-member Election Commission is constitutionally valid, and whether the CEC has a superior/primacy status over other Election Commissioners in decision-making.
Held: A multi-member Election Commission is constitutionally permissible; the Election Commission functions as a constitutional body, and where more than one member exists, decisions may be taken collectively (including by majority), without undermining the Commission’s independence.
(O) Welfare State Orientation #
The constitutional scheme, especially through the Directive Principles, commits India to a welfare state, requiring the State to promote social justice, education, health, and equality of opportunity.
3. Conclusion #
The Constitution of India is a living and transformative document. Its salient features—parliamentary democracy, quasi-federalism, fundamental rights, welfare directives, an independent judiciary, secularism, universal franchise, emergency provisions with constitutional limits, and independent constitutional institutions—together ensure that India remains a sovereign, democratic, welfare-oriented polity. It balances individual liberty with collective progress and power with accountability, which explains its resilience and continuing relevance.
