Critical Analysis Of The Constitutional Assembly Debate
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 day ago
- 1 min read
Thangasudalaimani. V, B.A.LL.B., The Central Law College, Salem.
Kaviya M.M., B.A.LL.B., The Central Law College, Salem.
ABSTRACT
The Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) form the intellectual bedrock of the Indian Constitution, reflecting both consensus-building and ideological contestation. They embodied governance and federalism. Yet, these debates also exposed structural conflicts and pragmatic compromises. While inclusion of marginalised voices was a strength, key provisions such as fundamental rights, Directive Principles, and affirmative action were often shaped more by elite pragmatism than radical transformation. Socioeconomic rights, for instance, were weakened by making Directive Principles non-justiciable. Federalism bore a centralising bias, driven by Partition-era insecurities, which still affects Centre-State dynamics. Similarly, rights were framed with “reasonable restrictions,” reflecting a tension between liberty and state power that later enabled overreach. Gender and caste debates, though progressive in intent, carried patriarchal and hierarchical undertones, leaving structural inequities intact. In sum, the CAD was visionary yet limited, inclusive yet hierarchical, a historical process balancing ideals with political realities. Understanding these debates is crucial to grasping the Constitution’s strengths, compromises, and unfinished pursuit of justice and equality.
Keywords: Constituent Assembly Debates, Constitutional Compromises, Federalism and Centralization, Fundamental Rights and Limitations, Socio- Economic Justic
