The Constitution at the Crossroads: Political Expediency vs. Constitutional Integrity

Since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the protection of India’s Constitution and the preservation of its principles have become central to electoral discourse. This theme has persisted across state elections, from Haryana to Jharkhand, and now, with growing prominence, in Maharashtra. Political parties often accuse one another of undermining the Constitution, whether through past actions or by hinting at future revisions, turning the Constitution into both a shield and a political tool.

A cursory glance at historical data reveals that the Constitution has been amended more than a hundred times. These changes, enacted by various governments over the decades, demonstrate that amendments are not inherently a sign of constitutional erosion. Indeed, the sheer number of amendments is not, in itself, an indicator of any existential threat to the document. Some amendments, however, have had far-reaching consequences, and the manner in which they were enacted has often sparked controversy.

Take, for example, the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. While the article was always meant to be temporary, its sudden removal in 2019 generated sharp criticism. The opposition’s stance remains unclear: is the objection to the idea of abrogation itself, or to the way it was executed? A similar debate surrounds the introduction of the term “secular” in the Preamble in 1976. While the principle of secularism in governance is broadly accepted, the political circumstances that led to its formal inclusion have drawn criticism. In both cases, while the processes involved may be questioned, the intent behind the amendments does not appear to contravene the spirit of the Constitution.

A more complex issue, however, is the ongoing debate over reservations, particularly in the context of the forthcoming Maharashtra assembly election. Just as Article 370 was intended as a temporary provision, so too were caste-based reservations originally meant to be time-bound, lasting only for ten years. Seventy-five year+s later, the demand for reservations is not receding but rather growing. Despite this, there is broad consensus across the political spectrum in favour of continuing the policy.

The Constitution’s provisions for caste-based reservations stem from the belief of India’s founding fathers that historical injustices—whether committed by one caste against another—needed to be rectified. These provisions were designed to address the socio-economic, cultural, and psychological disadvantages inflicted upon affected communities. This was deemed necessary, even though such discrimination is no longer legally sanctioned and is considered a crime. While the effectiveness of this policy is debatable, it has been accepted and followed by society for decades.

The key question now is whether reservations are being pursued with genuine intent or for short-term political gain. While all political parties claim to uphold the principles behind the founding fathers' vision, not all have consistently adhered to its true spirit. Historical injustices were not only caste-based; there are numerous documented instances of religiously motivated wrongs, such as the destruction of places of worship by foreign invaders. Yet the *Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act*, which seeks to preserve the status quo of religious sites, effectively prevents any corrective action for these historical wrongs in the present day. This law contradicts the spirit of the Constitution, which calls for redress of historical injustices. Ironically, while reservations based on caste are increasingly supported, the *Places of Worship Act*—which stands in opposition to the same principle of rectifying past wrongs—remains intact. Political parties that truly believe in the Constitution’s spirit should advocate not only for the continuation of reservations but also for the repeal of laws that contradict this fundamental principle.

The call for a uniform civil code is another example of constitutional intent caught in a web of political controversy, as is the debate over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Like the *Places of Worship Act* and the reservation debate, it is difficult to discern whether these laws are genuinely aligned with the broader goals of the Constitution, or if they simply serve political expediency.

In times of constitutional debate, political parties must engage in a more profound introspection. They should examine whether their actions align with the Constitution’s stated or implicit goals, and rise above short-term political calculations. This self-examination is essential, for the Constitution’s principles—intended as a moral and legal framework for the nation—are not meant to be wielded as a political weapon. Whether the Constitution is being upheld out of convenience or with genuine conviction will ultimately depend on the commitment of our political leaders to its true spirit.

The future of India’s constitutional integrity lies not in the number of amendments or electoral promises, but in the unwavering commitment to the foundational principles of justice, equality, and secularism.

(The author works in Information Technology sector. Views personal.)