Odisha, India

The idea of a written Constitution was seen in terms of its ability to limit the governmental power. Instead of examining the content of the Constitution, this proposition focused on its functional reality and suggested classifying Constitutions as normative, nominal and semantic.

Advertisment

It is not enough that a Constitution is valid in the legal sense. To be normative i.e. real and effective, it must be faithfully followed by all citizens. It requires the socioeconomic and political situation conducive to its adoption. In other words; a normative constitution provides norms which have been accepted by the society in actual practice.

Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality.

×

However, normativity cannot be taken for granted; it requires actual verification in each case. Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality. A nominal Constitution, therefore, implies that present socio-economic conditions of the country are not yet prepared for accepting the norms laid down by the Constitution.

Advertisment

Perhaps the adoption of the Constitution is premature. But the hope exists, sooner or later, the government and people will agree to the constitutional norms. When a Constitution instead of controlling the governmental power has itself become a tool in the hands of few to perpetuate their vested interest and curtail the individual liberty, it is described as a semantic Constitution.

Whether Indian Constitution is to be characterised as normative, nominal, or semantic cannot be decided from its text alone. In each case, insight into the realities of the power process is required. Drafted in the background of a long nationalist movement Indian Constitution incorporated all the fundamental policy and value choices of a normative Constitution; the most significant was the idea of constitutionalism.

The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system.

×

Advertisment

However, the working of the Constitution in these seven decades casts a doubt on its normative character. In fact, discharge of emergency powers of the Constitution demonstrates more of its semantic character.

The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system. The power of the executive was enhanced overnight and, eventually, turned into an authoritarian regime, which not only curtailed the freedom of citizens but also, paralysed the independent judiciary. Supersession of judges, arrests and detentions of political leaders, student union leaders, eminent personalities, without trials shocked the entire nation.

Enactment of Maintenance of Internal Security Act and Defense of India Rules silenced every possible opposition. Imposition of family planning programmes, execution of birth control methods like sterilisation and vasectomy witnessed the invasion of governmental power into the personal lives of common people to control sexuality. The censorship of the press to curb the democratic voices was another feature which our government possibly learned from its alien predecessor.

The tendency to disregard the constitutionalism was also reflected in the exercise of power under Article 356 popularly known as ‘President Rule’. Being in nature an emergency and extraordinary power meant to be exercised only as a last resort; the power had more often been misused to distract the democratic and federal fabric of the constitution.

In more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional.

×

A survey of the use of Article 356 shows that as of now, the President’s Rule has been imposed more than hundred times. Sarkaria Commission which analysed 75 cases of President’s Rule from June 1951 to May 1987 ( 1950-1954- 3 times, 1955-1959- 3 times, 1960-1964- 2 times, 1965-1969- 9 times, 1970- 1974-19 times, 1975-1979- 21 times, 1980-1987- 18 times) found in more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional.

On three occasions (in 1979, 1980 & 1992) assemblies had been dissolved en mass. A Constitution is expected to endure for a long time and therefore the success of institutions requires in those who have to work, readiness to learn from failures of the past, respect the viewpoints of others and capacity for developing healthy conventions an aspect where we perhaps failed and failed miserably.

The post-emergency phase too witnessed a series of draconian laws like AFSPA, which shows that life and liberty of the citizens is still a plaything in the hands of a majority government. A lot needs to be done in the wake of global standards to claim a normative status.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).