Talk:Constitution of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Constitution of India as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Kannada language Wikipedia.

The article on the constitution of Alabama also claims to be the longest in the world. Which is right?

If the article on the Alabama constitution is to be believed (310 000 words), then it wins by a longshot. India's is only 117 369 words long. The words might not be the same length, but that's nearly 3x difference. 68.39.174.150 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that Alabama is a state and India is the NATION. The length referes to length of the constitution of a country.

~rAGU 10:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, at the time they both used the all-inclusive "in the world" with no reference to jurisdiction. This has since been rectified both places. 68.39.174.238 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Clean up? 2 Feedback reg my changes 3 Capitalisation 4 Incompleteness and ambiguity 5 Response to Sundar 6 Response to Sundar 7 tone of criticism 8 Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India 9 Mandal commission 10 Constitution of India in English and Hindi 11 System of checks and balances in the Indian constitution 12 Note: features of Indian constituions adopted from other constitutions 13 What indigenous ideas does the Indian Constitution represent? 14 Sikhs in the constitution 15 Features of Indian Constitution or Fiction??????

[edit] Clean up?

I looked through this article and found it rather good, possibly even a good article or with some improvements equal to FA level. Therefore I'm removing the clean-up tag from it as I fail to see the problem with the article. Kaushik twin 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback reg my changes

I think the statement about the central govement's legitimacy eroding is not right. That is one of the strong points of democracy. A strong central government, which can keep the overruling state governments in check. At the same time, there are executive/judiciary components that keep an overruling central government in check. Ironically, the changing face of the executive on change of party at the centre ensures that not even the executive goes unchecked.

So, I have removed the line which said that the legitimacy of the central government has eroded. I hope I wont be wrong considering the last government and this, who have been able to provide the country with a balance of power between the centre and the state (by nature of being coalition governments). Furthermore aiding the liberalization process, I think the central government is now looked up now, to improve the economy of the country. Hence it is far-fetched to say that the legitimacy has eroded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madanus (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Capitalisation

I have noticed a particular curiosity across all articles related to Indian democratic institutions. Most people forget that the "institution" (such as the Office of the President, Office of the Prime Minister) is above and more important than any person, including the person occupying that chair. Hence, I think we should use Capital letters at the beginning of any word which relates to any public office in such a system. I know it might seem tedious, but this is the only way it is done in an encyclopedia of some standing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzadeliveryboy (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Incompleteness and ambiguity

While I agree with Pizzadeliveryboy's edit that the Preamble is not enforceable (which was already mentioned in the article), the tone of his recent edits suggests a point of view that the "incompleteness and ambiguity" in the Constitution of India is bad. It is bound to be incomplete giving room for amendments and so are the ambiguities. I believe that every written constitution is bound to have these attributes. I've left a message in his talk page asking for an explanation. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Sundar

I agree that the tone of my edit is acerbic and confrontational. However, I think it is important to explore and document all possible outcomes (and consequences) of the ambiguity of a document to which every citizen of India has sworn allegiance. As a democracy, it is not only our right but our duty to point out the lacunae and mistakes of our rulers (and the powers bestowed upon them), and the consequences of the fualts should also be documented for perpetuity.

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Sundar

While I agree that my tone is acerbic and confrontational, it is no way non-nuetral. I think it is perfectly within the ambit of an encyclopaedic entry to document not only the faults in a particular system (in this case, the Constitution of India), but also point out the possible, though (hopefully) unlikely consequences os the same lacuna.

my point is this:

The only place in the Constitution where the fundamental right to life, liberty, freedom, justice and fraternity (dignity of life) is enshrined in the Constitution of India is the Preamble. Nowhere else in the 21 parts or schedules is there any assurance that there rights, which define the basic rights of a human being, are paramount and unassailable. Please remember that any laws that guarantee such rights do not count here, since laws created by passing of Acts by Parliament are not part of the Constitution per se, and may be reverted, countermanded, absolved or ignored by a simple Presidential Ordinance, requiring no majority vote. The Constitution of India, along with the Consitution of UK are the only 2 cases where the fundamental right to life is guaranteed but not enforceable by law (I think there is precedent in the Emergency for this point). On the other hand, the constitutions of France, Australia, USA have Bill of Rights which are protected and enforceable by law.

Moreover, the fact that the legislative body is above the other arms of government is indeed an aberration. Democratic ideals from which the Constitution of India draws inspiration, have clearly outlined the principle of "Checks and Balances": No arm of government shall be superior to any other, all shall have counterweighing rights and responsibilities to check the possibility of a particular arm of government from usurping complete power (I think we have already have a precedent for this one) - these are outlined both by Benjamin Franklin (USA) and Montesqieu (France). I think Australia too takes off from the US Constitution on this one, though I am not aware of the stand of the UK and Irish constitutions on this front.

While I agree that my tone is acerbic and confrontational, it is no way non-nuetral. I think it is perfectly within the ambit of an encyclopaedic entry to document not only the faults in a particular system (in this case, the Constitution of India), but also point out the possible, though (hopefully) unlikely consequences os the same lacuna.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely things in the constitution that are bad or those that could've been better. You shouldn't put them when you define something (because these are not the "defining" attributes of the Constitution or the Preamble). There can be a separate section for criticisms and you can put those with proper citations. And the non-enforceability of the Preamble needs mention, and it WAS mentioned even before your edit. I'd prefer the same version. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tone of criticism

I have changed the tone of criticism since the statement that there are no checks and balances in the Indian Constitution is incorrect. Only that the checks and balances does not fully conform with the philiophy of Montesqieu, but only partially.

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

This article is on Peer review. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India and leave feedback. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandal commission

Hello, while doing cleanup I noticed that Mandal commission has been tagged since 2005. In researching this I found reference to something about "seat reservations" apparently mandated by the 1950 Constitution. Anyone who knows something about this would be much better able to fix up the Mandal article than I... Kaisershatner 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of India in English and Hindi

Readers are requested refer Government of India official web site for Constitution of India in English and Hindi.

Content owned, maintained and updated by Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, India.

• http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html

Same is available in one single file and downloads from web site.

See the link

• http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00

vkvora 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System of checks and balances in the Indian constitution

Can we use this image somewhere. System of checks and balances in the Indian constitution has been tagged as prod. utcursch | talk 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It seems too good to waste. Hornplease 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As good as it is, it's clearly original research unless backed up with primary or secondary sources. One could make a cited pic showing the three estates and the unoffical but widely acknowledged fourth estate, plus the regulatory arms and use it in the current article itself. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note: features of Indian constituions adopted from other constitutions

collected by Sinosh - Feroz ali khan - Suraj harindranath - Kiran kumar

The names of the contributors are usually not included in the article. --Natkeeran 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What indigenous ideas does the Indian Constitution represent?

Could some one point out what indigenous ideas (i.e., something that has not been borrowed from Constitutions of other countries) have been embodied in to the Indian Constitution?

From reading this article, it seems to me there is a lack of original thought in the Indian Constitution - it simply seems to be a collection of ideas from several constitutions (I am referring to section "Features of the Indian Constitution adapted from other Constitutions").

My knowledge of Constitutions in general and Indian Constitution in particular is limited, so thanks for the info in advance! --Naresh 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhs in the constitution

I think that you should include the fact that Sikhs today do not accept this constitution as it shows that not everyone agrees with it. In the constitution, it refers to Sikhs as Hindus-Sikhs, signifying Hindus and Sikhs being the same thing. Sure, the founder of Sikhism was born into a Hindu family, but that doesnt make Sikhism similar to Hinduism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tidus3684 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Features of Indian Constitution or Fiction??????

Since its enactment, the constitution has fostered a steady concentration of power in the hands of the central government - especially the Office of the Prime Minister. This centralization has occurred in the face of the increasing assertiveness of an array of ethnic and caste groups across Indian society.

This wikipedia article lists the above as a feature of the Indian Constitution.... My knowledge about the constitution is not too good, but then I have " a little" common sense. What does ethnicity or castes have to do with the constitution? This kind of comments(Neither FACTS nor SENSE) definitely do NOT improve wikiproject india's credibility.... as well as undermining credibility of India and Indians ...... 210.19.225.8 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Kumar