India's constitution is one of a kind. Many aspects of our Constitution are based on ideas from around the world. As a result, some people criticise the Indian Constitution as a "borrowed Constitution." Despite the fact that we have derived several features, we have adjusted those provisions to meet our requirements. As a result, entirely new sections have been drafted and incorporated into the Indian Constitution. The following are some of the key characteristics of India's Constitution:

1. Written, Lengthy and Detailed:

India, like the United States of America, Canada, and France, has a written constitution, albeit it differs in many ways from those documents. India's Constitution is one of the most intricately written in the world, and it is also the most voluminous. The framers of the Constitution worked hard to ensure that all of the country's administrative and governance challenges were addressed. Even issues that are the subject of international treaties have been written down in black and white.

In its initial form, the Indian Constitution included 395 articles and eight schedules. Some new articles have been added and some old ones have been abolished as a result of revisions made since then. The number of schedules has increased as well. The majority of the Constitution, however, has not changed.

2. Accumulation of Borrowed Wisdom of the World:

The drafters of the Constitution drew on proven and true concepts from other countries' constitutions. England's parliamentary system of government has been implemented. The Supreme Court and the chapter on Fundamental Rights demonstrate the Constitution's unmistakable effect. The Directive Principles of State Policy were inspired by the Irish State. India's federation is modelled after Canada's, with the centre receiving residuary powers. As a result, the Indian Constitution is a composite of several other constitutions.

3. Amalgamation of Rigid and Flexible:

The Indian Constitution is a mix of rigidity and flexibility. The mechanism for amending the Constitution established by the Constitution is neither as simple as in England nor as arduous as in the United States. A constitutional amendment can be proposed in either the House of Commons or the Senate. It can be passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, as well as an absolute majority of the entire membership of each house voting separately. Certain provisions of the Constitution, however, can only be changed with the ratification of at least half of the states' legislatures.

Because they do not have their own constitutions, state legislatures have no power to modify the Constitution. Within the federal framework in both Canada and Australia, provinces and states can write their own constitutions.

4. The Socialist Aspect of Indian Constitution:

The term "socialism" does not appear in the original Constitution. However, by establishing a society founded on equality, economic fairness, and non-exploitation, it embodies the essence of the socialist worldview. The articles of the Constitution dealing with the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, special provisions for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, and Schedules V and VI of the Constitution are all aimed directly at attaining the social aims.

5. Essentially Federal with Unitary Features:

India, or Bharat, is a union of states, according to the Constitution. It establishes a two-tiered government. Powers are well defined and demarcated in this set of dual polities. The following are the provisions that play a role in power distribution:

• Legislators of the centre as well as state participate in the election of President under Articles 54 and 55.
• Demarcation of executive powers between the Centre and State under Articles 73 and 162.
• Legislative powers between the centre and state are well distributed under the range of Schedule 7 providing Union List (100), State List (61) and Concurrent List (52).
• The Upper House (Rajya Sabha) is represented by the states.
• Compulsory ratification by at least half of the states for amending above provisions.

In spite of having substantial federal features, Indian Constitution is strikingly characterised by a host of centralising features. Some of which are as follows:

• No separate Constitution for
• No dual citizenship.
• Authoritative power of centre to change the name, boundary and territory of any state.
• In addition to residuary power to centre; central law prevails over the state law in conflicting matters of Schedule 7.
• National emergency, President rule, financial emergency are another examples depicting centralised features.
• Appointment of High Court judges without much say of the states.
• Appointment and role of the Governor is inclined heavily towards center.
• Common Election Commissions, CAG etc. are another such features.

Indian federalism can be termed as quasi-federal in light of above mentioned features.

6. Parliamentary System of Government:

The Constitution establishes parliamentary government at both the national and state levels. It operates under the British Cabinet System, with the Prime Minister serving as the union's chief executive. The Council of Ministers, which is accountable to the legislatures, is entrusted with and exercises real power. The President and Governor are purely ceremonial figures.

The Parliamentary System of Government, as practised in the United Kingdom, was adopted primarily as a result of its success in England, as well as the political experience gained by the Indian people through the operation of partial responsible governments under the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935.

7. Single Citizenship:

Despite the fact that India has a federal government, the US Constitution does not allow for dual citizenship. India has a common citizenship for all Indians, regardless of where they live. Since Americans are considered citizens of the state in which they reside, they are also citizens of the United States of America as a whole. They have various rights and responsibilities in each of these capacities.

The Indian Constitution established the notion of single citizenship in order to build a strong social and political link among India's people, who were split by race, ethnicity, languages, and a wide range of religious and cultural backgrounds.

8. Directive Principles of State Policy:

Another distinguishing aspect of the Indian Constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy. This characteristic was derived from the Irish Constitution. These are the ideals that the government should strive for as much as feasible. These concepts are unjustifiable in the eyes of the law. If the state fails to adopt or realise any of these principles, no legal action can be filed against it in a court of law. They do not grant citizens any constitutional rights, and they cannot be enforced in the same way as Fundamental Rights may. These ideals, on the other hand, have been made central to the country's governance. Every governing authority has a moral obligation to follow them and understand their purpose.

9. Fundamental Rights:

The Constitution of India, like the Constitution of the United States of America, provides a distinct chapter guaranteeing Fundamental Rights to all citizens. These are inalienable and justiciable rights. They bind both the legislature and the executive branch. A citizen has the right to seek judicial protection if any of his or her rights are violated. Any act of the legislature or executive order can be deemed null and void if it infringes on one or more of the people' Fundamental Rights protected by the Constitution.

10. Independence of Judiciary:

Our Constitution establishes an independent judiciary that is unaffected by the executive and legislative branches. When executive orders and ordinances have been found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has ruled them null and void.

The Supreme Court has demonstrated its total independence and neutrality in issues such as the annulment of ordinances relating to Privy Purses and Bank Nationalization.

11. Balance Between Judicial Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty:

The Indian Constitution is a well-balanced mix of judicial supremacy and parliamentary power. It avoids the Supreme Court of the United States' extra-territorial authority, which can overturn any act of the American Congress on the basis that it is antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has become a super legislative as a result of its judicial review power.

On the other hand, the British Constitution incorporates the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. The British Parliament has the power to pass, amend, and repeal any sort of legislation, good or evil, natural or unnatural, and English courts cannot pronounce any Act of Parliament null and void for any reason.

By avoiding judicial supremacy of the American kind and parliamentary sovereignty of the British type, the Indian Constitution strikes a golden middle. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can overturn Parliament's sovereign will in order to ensure that the people are treated fairly.

Within the confines of the constitution's basic structure, Parliament has absolute authority over legislation. This is how the Indian Constitution elegantly embodies a balance between the British and American systems.

12. Basic Features Doctrine:

The Supreme Court of India established the doctrines of implied and inherent restrictions, as well as the notion of basic features, in the Keshavanand Bharati Case of 1973. Even though they knew the legislature was focused on giving itself limitless amending authority, the majority of judges in this instance found that the amending power was limited.

The Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution does not provide for the writing of a new Constitution, this does not preclude the legislature from reshaping or restructuring the Constitution. As a result, it is reasonable to believe that the implied constraint inhibits the legislature's ability to change the Constitution in an unidentifiable manner. The notion that Parliament's will is the will of the people, and thus Parliament retains its infinite amending power, is absurd because the electorate does not consider constitutional amendments while voting in Parliamentary elections. So it's important to understand that Article 368 only allows the legislature to make changes as long as the Constitution has its unique identity. By passing the 24th Amendment Act, Parliament changed Article 368 to broaden the scope of its modifying power under that article. This is an obvious breach of the implied limitation principle. A creature of the Constitution cannot think of itself as superior to it.

To summarise, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is not designed to lose its identity as a result of amendments. The Constitution's identity is the sum of its key characteristics. Article 368 cannot be interpreted as the Constitution's death wish or as a provision for its legal suicide.

The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament's power to alter the Constitution was subject to an implied limitation, namely that Parliament may not rewrite the Constitution to change its fundamental elements.

Elements of the Basic Structure:

The current situation is that the Parliament can alter any element of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, under Article 368 without harming the Constitution's core framework. The following core aspects of the Constitution or elements of the basic structure of the Constitution have evolved from various judgments:

• Supremacy of the Constitution.
• Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity.
• Secular character of the Constitution.
• Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
• Federal character of the Constitution.
• Unity and integrity of the nation.
• Welfare state (Socio economic justice).
• Judicial Review.
• Freedom and dignity of the individual.
• Parliamentary System.
• Rule of law.
• Harmony and balance between Fundamental Right and DPSPs.
• Principle of equality.      
• Free and fair elections.
• Independence of judiciary.
• Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• Effective access to justice.
• Principle of reasonableness.
• Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32, 136, 141 and 142.

 

13. Sepation of Powers:

The separation of powers concept analyses the idea that governmental functions must be divided into three parts: legislature, executive, and judiciary. The three organs should be independent, distinct, and sovereign in their own spheres, so that none of them intrudes on the other's domain.

The Indian Constitution's founders did not accept the notion of separation of powers in a strict sense. Unlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution does not strictly apply this notion. It cannot be seen directly, but it may be recognised in the Constitution by the distinctions created in the fulfilment of functions by the several departments of government.

Practically and conceptually, a complete and absolute separation of powers is impossible. It is, however, always feasible to give this doctrine a broad interpretation. The basic principle of power separation would be as follows:

• that the same persons should not form part of more than one of the three organs of government.
• that one organ of government should not control or interfere with the work of another.
• that one organ of government should not exercise the functions of another.

 

14. Democracy and Separation of Powers:

The doctrine of separation of powers has played an important role in democracy's development. Democracy requires a system in which every citizen can freely express himself and pursue his or her interests without fear of retaliation. It allows him to live the life he wants as long as he doesn't infringe on other people's rights. The three pillars of democracy are the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive. In fact, no democracy anticipates the transfer of absolute power to a single authority.

As a result, one of the most important components of our constitutional architecture is the system of checks and balances. Due to their need on one another for effective governance, the three organs cannot be separated into three watertight compartments. To accomplish meaningful sustenance and purposeful advancement for citizens, they must labour in accordance and consonance. Though it is always preferable to have the least amount of encroachment possible.

The conscience of our Constitution speaks through its Preamble and the dynamics of its goal is spelt-out, in its various provisions. The will of the people finds its best expression in the every word as inscribed in the preamble ‘We the People of India’ and “do hereby adopt, enact and give ourselves this Constitution.” Thus, it is the power in choosing their representatives to the Parliament.

 

Conclusion:

The Constitution is the country's supreme law. No organ should act in ways that are inconsistent with the Constitution's mandate. The judiciary, executive, and legislature all have a responsibility to follow the Constitution's 'Separation of Powers' principle to the letter. It is pointless to criticise the constitutional separation of powers plan when the present laws are not strictly adhered to.

There is a significant disconnect between the constitutional plan and separation of powers practise. It can only be crossed when all three organs perform in perfect unison, putting them one step ahead of the rest of the world's democracies.

The status and functions of the three state institutions were also outlined by the founding fathers of the Constitution. They realised that, as an organic entity, government would never be able to accomplish total division of powers. As a result, aiming for total separation of powers is a mistake. The spirit of the Constitution is shared coordination, not exclusivity.

In recent years, the executive branch has become extremely powerful, which has undoubtedly resulted in widespread abuse of power. Apart from the judiciary and legislature, the media and non-governmental organisations have played a key role in exposing government officials' wrongdoings.

The three organs' ultimate goal is to safeguard the people's rights. In a democracy, citizens' vigilance can aid in guaranteeing proper functioning and preventing arbitrarily exercised power. As a result, none of the three organs can usurp the important functions of the organs that make up the basic structure, even if the Constitution is amended, and if it is, the court will declare it unconstitutional.

These basic features forms the bedrock of Indian Constitution which reflects the real spirit and ethos.