Objective Resolution of the constitution

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objective Resolution on December 13, 1946, which was accepted by the Constituent Assembly
on 22 January 1947. It established the concept and guiding principles for building the Constitution and eventually took the shape of the
Preamble to the Indian Constitution.
1. This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an independent Sovereign Republic and to
draw up for her future governance a Constitution :
2. WHEREIN the territories that now comprise British India, the territories that now form the Indian States, and such other parts of
India as are outside British India and the States as well as such other territories as are willing to be constituted into the Independent
Sovereign India shall be a Union of them all; and
3. WHEREIN the said territories, whether with their present boundaries or with such others as may be determined by the Constituent
Assembly and thereafter according to the law of the Constitution shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units, together
with residuary powers, and exercise all powers and functions of government and administration, save an except such powers and
functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union, or as are inherent or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom; and
4. WHEREIN all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of government, are derived
from the people; and
5. WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India justice, social, economic, and political; equality of status, of
opportunity, and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to
law and public morality; and
6. WHEREIN adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward
classes; and
7. WHEREBY shall be maintained the integrity of the territory of the Republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air according
to justice and the law of civilised nations; and
8. this ancient land attain its rightful and honoured place in the world and make its full and willing contribution to the promotion of
world peace and the welfare of mankind.
 Constituent Assembly Debate on Preamble
Preamble
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation;
In Our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949,
do Hereby Adopt, Enact And Give To Ourselves This Constitution.
 Secular, Federal, Socialist
On November 15, 1948, India debated in the Constituent Assembly on the nature of the Constitution.
Prof K T Shah proposed inserting the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist”.
His above-mentioned words to be read as, “India shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.” He was of the
opinion that by using such words in the Preamble, it will give an idea about the governing ideals of the Constitution.
According to Ambedkar, this proposal was rejected because “What should be the policy of the State, how the Society
should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according
to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is against democratic feature of the
country”
Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign,
democratic, republic,”
It was vehemently opposed by Maulana Hasrat Mohani. According to him, the Objectives Resolution had three
words Independent Sovereign Republic.
He asked the Constituent Assembly to decide on the following three sets of words that are to be incorporated in the
Preamble before the consideration of the Draft Constitution clause by clause.
• Sovereign Independent Republic,
• Sovereign Democratic Republic,
• Sovereign Democratic State.”
After due deliberations, ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ was adopted.
 Federalism
When Dr. Ambedkar presented the Draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly, he described the Constitution
proposed to be federal, even though the word used in Article 1 was Union and the word “federal” was never mentioned
in the Preamble or any other provision.
With regard to the nature of a federal state, Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar proclaimed that one of the essential
principles of a Federal Constitution is that it must provide for a method of dividing sovereign powers so that the
Government at the Centre and the Governments in the Units are each within a defined sphere, co-ordinate and
independent.
• He said that the orthodox definition of federalism as adopted by other constitutions was not rigidly followed as there
was no clear demarcation between the functions of the centre and the states and that they had to be dependent on each
other.
• This definition would not apply to the Indian context as they were facing problems which many of the
constitution-makers who adopted federalism had not faced historically.
In this regard, Dr. Ambedkar clarified that only the President can exercise the power under Articles 250, 352 and 353
of the Constitution and this exercise requires the approval of both Houses of the Indian Parliament.
Article 250: Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to any matter in the State List if a Proclamation of
Emergency is in operation
Article 352: Proclamation of Emergency
Article 353: Effect of Proclamation of Emergency
He outlined this view when he opined thus: “These provisions make the Indian Constitution both ‘Unitary as well as
Federal’ according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a federal
system. But in times of war, it is so designed as to make it work as though it was a unitary system.”
 Fundamental Rights
On the 29th of April 1947, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel moved that “the Constituent Assembly to
proceed to take into consideration the interim report on the subject of Fundamental Rights
submitted by the Advisory Committee appointed by resolution of the Assembly of the 24th
January, 1947.”
At the outset he stated that in considering the question of fixing the Fundamental Rights and
incorporating them into the constitution the committee came to the conclusion that the Fundamental
Rights should be divided into 2 parts - the first part justiciable and the other part nonjusticiable.
In the course of the debate, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru pointed out that several matters which
could hardly be called justifiable included in the Report e. g . Freedom of speech, the right to
assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to form associations etc.
They were all subjected to safeguards, the right non-justiciable. He admitted that restrictions
necessary, but maintained that the rights conferred on citizens in practice cease to be justifiable.
Mr. P. R. Thakur also in favour of inclusion of economic rights as justiciable rights. Mr. Thakur
pointed it out as a lacuna in the fundamental rights which is responsible for making our country
short sighted.
The absence of the right to work gives the imagination of innumerable evils such as unemployment
and starvation which will play havoc with the country for years to come.
 Fundamental Rights
•Right to equality – Article 14 to 18
•Right to freedom – Article 19 to 22
•Rightagainst exploitation – Article 23 and 24
•Right to freedom of religion – Article 25 to 28
•Cultural and educational rights – Article 29 and 30
•Right to constitutional remedies- Article 32 to 35
Article 31 stands repealed.
 Untouchability
Draft Article 11 (Article 17, Constitution of India 1950) was debated on 29 November 1948 in the Constituent
Assembly. It aimed to abolish the practice of untouchability.
The debate was short. However, there was some confusion about the scope of the term “untouchability.” Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad moved an amendment that for article 11, the following article be substituted
“No one shall on account of his religion or caste be treated or regarded as an untouchable and its observance in
any form may be made punishable by law.”
Dr. Mono Mohan Das was of the opinion that the removal of Untouchability is an important fundamental right.
Professor K.T. Shah made a suggestion that the definition of Untouchability is nowhere given in the Constitution
and a question may arise as to what constitutes Untouchability.
He suggested making corrections i.e. to use a different word instead of using the word “Untouchability”.
According to him, if a person is placed under disability for a period of time, he is treated as an untouchable.
His suggestion was not accepted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Thereafter, the motion regarding Article 11 was adopted
and it was added to the Constitution.
Article 17 Abolition of Untouchability: Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The
enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law
 Minority Reservation
Kazi Syed Karimuddin, “the most important provision in this
Constitution from the point of view of the minorities is the provision of
reservation of seats with joint electorates. The only provision made for
the minorities now is joint electorate with reservation of seats. In my
opinion, it is neither here, nor there. Joint electorates with reservation of
seats is absolutely of no consequence to the minorities. It would do them
positive disservice. The representatives who would be elected under
joint electorate with reservation of seats would not be the
representatives of the minorities for whom reservation is given.”
 Reservation in Employment Opportunities
S Nagappa and Jaipal Singh, who were members of the depressed classes
demanded reservation proportional to the population of backward classes.
They demanded representation in the cabinet as well.
Jaipal Singh also argued for the rights and dignity of the Adivasis. He said
that Adivasis are the original inhabitants of the country, and therefore, they
should be given their due recognition.
The members from the schedule caste put forward that the reservation policy
shall either renew after 10 years or the 10 year period clause shall abolish. In
case, if
• there is no substantial progress
• there is a need for more progress
• There is no change in the situation of the depressed classes even after the 10
years of reservation.
 Provision for Reservation under Indian Constitution
Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 15 (4) & (5): Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place
of birth.

Article 16 (4) & (4A): Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Article 243D: Reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Panchayats.
Article 233T: Reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Municipalities
Article 330: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the
People
Article 332: Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the
Legislative Assemblies of the States.
Part XVI: Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes which Include reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Anglo- Indian Community, and Other Backward Classes.
 Supreme Court Judgements on Reservations
CA Rajendran v. Union of India (1967): There would be no reservations for SC
and STs in promotions to Class I and II services in the railways.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Question of Post Reservation for
Backward Classes. 9 Judge bench Judgment
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Court validated Parliament's decision to
extend reservations for SC/STs to include promotions (reservation in promotion).
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): 93rd constitutional amendment
act, 2005 was challenged in this case.
• The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed by Parliament
in 2006 to assist the educational objectives of the underprivileged sections of the
nation and to bring private colleges and unaided education institutions under the
government’s reservation policy.
The Supreme Court observed that reservations provide an extra advantage to those
who without such support dream of university education.
 Outcome of the Debate
Representation of Anglo-Indians in the legislative assembly: It was suggested by Pandit Thakur Das
Bhargava, a member of the INC and Constituent Assembly.
Ambiguous 10 years time period: It was suggested by Mr Naziruddin Ahmed. He stated whether or
not those holding reserved positions will be required to resign from their positions if the government is
in power and the ten-year timeframe has passed.
No expiration period for a reservation: It was suggested by Mr Monomohan Das and Mr
Muniswami. Dr Ambedkar rejected the amendment on the grounds that the legislature had previously
unanimously chosen the expiration period and that any future changes to the section would require a
constitutional amendment.
Extension of Reservation for Schedule Castes: During the Debate on Reservations in Constituent
Assembly, according to Dr Ambedkar, other minorities had enjoyed privileges in the past for a longer
period of time, such as Muslims since 1910 and Christians since the 1920 Constitution, whereas the
scheduled caste had enjoyed privileges since the 1935 Constitution and practically since 1937, which
had also been discontinued by 1939.
The Scheduled Caste had only been receiving benefits for two years at that point, he thought they
should be granted a reservation for a longer period of time. But now that the resolution to end the
ten-year period has been enacted, he wouldn't oppose it, and the option to extend the time frame if
necessary would always be available.
 Uniform Civil Code
The debate on Uniform Civil Code was raised for the first time in the
Constituent Assembly on November 23, 1948. It was proposed by Meenu
Masani, and it was figured under Article 35.
Article 35, Draft Constitution of India 1948 (Article 44, Constitution of
India 1950): The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform
civil code throughout the territory of India.
The Uniform Civil Code first got support from women members. There
were 15 women members in the Constituent Assembly. Hansa Mehta
lobbied for a UCC as a member of the Fundamental Rights
Sub-Committee.
Apart from them, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Meenu
Masani, Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer also
supported the implementation of a UCC and argued strongly in its favour.
 Leaders Who Supported UCC
1. Dr BR Ambedkar, Supported the UCC as a means to promote gender equality
and eliminate discrimination based on personal laws. He advocated for a
comprehensive civil code that would ensure equal rights for women in
matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
2. Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized the need for social reform and modernization,
favoring a UCC to replace personal laws based on religion.
3. Dr Rajendra Prasad supported the idea of a UCC as a means to ensure equal
rights for women and promote gender justice.
4. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar argued for the UCC, highlighting the need to
eliminate discrimination against women and establish a uniform civil law for
all citizens. He stressed the importance of promoting gender equality and
social justice through a comprehensive civil code.
5. K M Munshi strongly supported the UCC, emphasizing the need to move
away from religious-based laws and establish a modern and egalitarian legal
framework.
 Leaders Who Opposed UCC
1. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad expressed concerns about the potential
erosion of religious autonomy and minority rights with the
implementation of a UCC. He emphasised the need to respect the cultural
and religious diversity of India, suggesting that personal laws should be
protected.
2. KT Shah raised concerns about the potential violation of religious
freedom and minority rights with the imposition of a UCC.
3. Frank Anthony expressed reservations about imposing a UCC,
emphasising the need to respect the cultural diversity and pluralism of
India. Highlighted the importance of safeguarding minority rights and
allowing communities to maintain their distinct identities.
4. Begum Aizaz Rasul raised concerns about the potential impact of a UCC
on Muslim personal laws, advocating for the protection of religious
practices.
 Death Penalty
Debate on Abolition of Death Penalty continued in between 1947 and 1949 in the Constituent
Assembly. It was questioned because of its judge-centric nature, possible uncertainty in its
enforcement, its discriminatory impact on the poor and the marginalised sections, and the
possibility of error in the final judgment.
It was discussed under Article 11-B (Proposed by Mr. Z.H. Lari)of the draft constitution as
“Capital punishment except for sedition involving use of violence should be abolished.”
Mr. Z.H. Lari, proposed it on the ground, “once the said punishment is pronounced, the offender
remains no more alive. Later on, if the court or tribunal comes to know that it had committed a
mistake i.e. the person on whom such sentence is pronounced is not guilty, such mistake cannot be
rectified.” He gave examples of thirty countries of the world where society is protected at large
without such punishment.
Amiyo Kumar Ghosh also supported this proposal but was not in favour of making it as a part of
the Constitution as incorporating such a clause in the Constitution, would fetter the hands of the
State for all time to resort to such punishment even if it is required by the exigencies of time.
K. Hanumanthaiya was also against abolition of Death Penalty. From the viewpoint of State he
observed that, “a man who has no consideration for human lives does not deserve any consideration
for his own life. Society is based not merely on reformation, but also on the fear instinct principle.”
 Ordinance Making Power of the President
On 23rd May 1949, the Constituent Assembly held a debate on Ordinance Making Power of the President dealt under Article
102 of the draft constitution and it has been incorporated under Article 123 of the current Indian Constitution, which states,
“Power of the President to promulgate Ordinances during the recess of Parliament.”
Article 102, Draft Constitution 1948,
1. If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist
which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances
appear to him to require.
2. An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament assented to by the
President, but every such Ordinance - Shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the
expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions
disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions.
When the ordinance-making powers of the President were being discussed in the Constituent Assembly, members were concerned
about more fundamental implications of such a power—namely, the allocation of legislative powers to the executive and the
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Hriday Nath Kunzru agreed that an emergency situation might require some immediate action by the government in the form of
an ordinance, but failed to see why Parliament shouldn’t convene immediately, or as soon as possible to deal with the situation.
K.T. Shah supported this argument, calling the ordinance making power “a negation of the rule of law,” and an “extreme power in
the hands of the executive.”
Continued…..
B. Pocker, proposed to insert a proviso in this Article, “Provide that
such ordinance shall not deprive any citizen of his right to personal
liberty except on conviction after trial by a competent court of law.”
B.R. Ambedkar acknowledged the concerns of the members and pointed
out that there must be some mechanism by which the executive could
deal with unforeseen situations through legislation, when Parliament is
not in session.
he discarded Mr. Kunzru’s concerns over the time period saying that
Parliament would likely have to meet quite frequently, therefore the
existing Article had sufficient protections.
 Power of President to promulgate
Ordinances during recess of Parliament.
1. If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is
satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may
promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.
2. An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of
Parliament, but every such Ordinance—
(a) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of
six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions
disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and
(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President.
Explanation.—Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the
period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this
clause.
3. If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would
not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.