Talk:Constitution of India/Archive 1

The article on the constitution of Alabama also claims to be the longest in the world. Which is right?

If the article on the Alabama constitution is to be believed (310 000 words), then it wins by a longshot. India's is only 117 369 words long. The words might not be the same length, but that's nearly 3x difference. 68.39.174.150 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that Alabama is a state and India is the NATION. The length referes to length of the constitution of a country.

~rAGU 10:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, at the time they both used the all-inclusive "in the world" with no reference to jurisdiction. This has since been rectified both places. 68.39.174.238 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up?

I looked through this article and found it rather good, possibly even a good article or with some improvements equal to FA level. Therefore I'm removing the clean-up tag from it as I fail to see the problem with the article. Kaushik twin 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning

I replaced The Politics of India template with template of TOC of Constitution of India. There is a long list of parts at the end making this article very long. I believe this will help cleaning this article. Also, after the list of parts and articles have been moved, specific attention can be given to them as well. Moved Politics of India as a nav bar at the bottom. Sumanch (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback reg my changes

I think the statement about the central govement's legitimacy eroding is not right. That is one of the strong points of democracy. A strong central government, which can keep the overruling state governments in check. At the same time, there are executive/judiciary components that keep an overruling central government in check. Ironically, the changing face of the executive on change of party at the centre ensures that not even the executive goes unchecked.

So, I have removed the line which said that the legitimacy of the central government has eroded. I hope I wont be wrong considering the last government and this, who have been able to provide the country with a balance of power between the centre and the state (by nature of being coalition governments). Furthermore aiding the liberalization process, I think the central government is now looked up now, to improve the economy of the country. Hence it is far-fetched to say that the legitimacy has eroded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madanus (talk • contribs) .

Capitalisation

I have noticed a particular curiosity across all articles related to Indian democratic institutions. Most people forget that the "institution" (such as the Office of the President, Office of the Prime Minister) is above and more important than any person, including the person occupying that chair. Hence, I think we should use Capital letters at the beginning of any word which relates to any public office in such a system. I know it might seem tedious, but this is the only way it is done in an encyclopedia of some standing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzadeliveryboy (talk • contribs) .

Capitalization if proper noun

From the stand point of an encyclopedia, I think it is appropriate to capitalize only if the word is a proper noun. Capitalizing words to show honor creates a tone of bias and that will be inappropriate. Staying within the grammatical boundaries does not show disrespect.71.199.51.114 (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Sumanch (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Incompleteness and ambiguity

While I agree with Pizzadeliveryboy's edit that the Preamble is not enforceable (which was already mentioned in the article), the tone of his recent edits suggests a point of view that the "incompleteness and ambiguity" in the Constitution of India is bad. It is bound to be incomplete giving room for amendments and so are the ambiguities. I believe that every written constitution is bound to have these attributes. I've left a message in his talk page asking for an explanation. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Sundar

I agree that the tone of my edit is acerbic and confrontational. However, I think it is important to explore and document all possible outcomes (and consequences) of the ambiguity of a document to which every citizen of India has sworn allegiance. As a democracy, it is not only our right but our duty to point out the lacunae and mistakes of our rulers (and the powers bestowed upon them), and the consequences of the fualts should also be documented for perpetuity.

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Sundar

While I agree that my tone is acerbic and confrontational, it is no way non-nuetral. I think it is perfectly within the ambit of an encyclopaedic entry to document not only the faults in a particular system (in this case, the Constitution of India), but also point out the possible, though (hopefully) unlikely consequences os the same lacuna.

my point is this:

The only place in the Constitution where the fundamental right to life, liberty, freedom, justice and fraternity (dignity of life) is enshrined in the Constitution of India is the Preamble. Nowhere else in the 21 parts or schedules is there any assurance that there rights, which define the basic rights of a human being, are paramount and unassailable. Please remember that any laws that guarantee such rights do not count here, since laws created by passing of Acts by Parliament are not part of the Constitution per se, and may be reverted, countermanded, absolved or ignored by a simple Presidential Ordinance, requiring no majority vote. The Constitution of India, along with the Consitution of UK are the only 2 cases where the fundamental right to life is guaranteed but not enforceable by law (I think there is precedent in the Emergency for this point). On the other hand, the constitutions of France, Australia, USA have Bill of Rights which are protected and enforceable by law.

Moreover, the fact that the legislative body is above the other arms of government is indeed an aberration. Democratic ideals from which the Constitution of India draws inspiration, have clearly outlined the principle of "Checks and Balances": No arm of government shall be superior to any other, all shall have counterweighing rights and responsibilities to check the possibility of a particular arm of government from usurping complete power (I think we have already have a precedent for this one) - these are outlined both by Benjamin Franklin (USA) and Montesqieu (France). I think Australia too takes off from the US Constitution on this one, though I am not aware of the stand of the UK and Irish constitutions on this front.

While I agree that my tone is acerbic and confrontational, it is no way non-nuetral. I think it is perfectly within the ambit of an encyclopaedic entry to document not only the faults in a particular system (in this case, the Constitution of India), but also point out the possible, though (hopefully) unlikely consequences os the same lacuna.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely things in the constitution that are bad or those that could've been better. You shouldn't put them when you define something (because these are not the "defining" attributes of the Constitution or the Preamble). There can be a separate section for criticisms and you can put those with proper citations. And the non-enforceability of the Preamble needs mention, and it WAS mentioned even before your edit. I'd prefer the same version. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

tone of criticism

I have changed the tone of criticism since the statement that there are no checks and balances in the Indian Constitution is incorrect. Only that the checks and balances does not fully conform with the philiophy of Montesqieu, but only partially.

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

This article is on Peer review. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India/archive3 and leave feedback. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mandal commission

Hello, while doing cleanup I noticed that Mandal commission has been tagged since 2005. In researching this I found reference to something about "seat reservations" apparently mandated by the 1950 Constitution. Anyone who knows something about this would be much better able to fix up the Mandal article than I... Kaisershatner 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of India in English and Hindi

Readers are requested refer Government of India official web site for Constitution of India in English and Hindi.

Content owned, maintained and updated by Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, India.

• http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html

Same is available in one single file and downloads from web site.

See the link

• http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00

vkvora 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

System of checks and balances in the Indian constitution

Can we use this image somewhere. System of checks and balances in the Indian constitution has been tagged as prod. utcursch | talk 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It seems too good to waste. Hornplease 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As good as it is, it's clearly original research unless backed up with primary or secondary sources. One could make a cited pic showing the three estates and the unoffical but widely acknowledged fourth estate, plus the regulatory arms and use it in the current article itself. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: features of Indian constituions adopted from other constitutions

collected by Sinosh - Feroz ali khan - Suraj harindranath - Kiran kumar

The names of the contributors are usually not included in the article. --Natkeeran 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Influence instead of features

I am changing features of Indian constituions adopted from other constitutions to Influence of Other Constitutions. Sumanch (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What indigenous ideas does the Indian Constitution represent?

Could some one point out what indigenous ideas (i.e., something that has not been borrowed from Constitutions of other countries) have been embodied in to the Indian Constitution?

From reading this article, it seems to me there is a lack of original thought in the Indian Constitution - it simply seems to be a collection of ideas from several constitutions (I am referring to section "Features of the Indian Constitution adapted from other Constitutions").

My knowledge of Constitutions in general and Indian Constitution in particular is limited, so thanks for the info in advance! --Naresh 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

India's constitution was written in 1947 after a lot of political experimentation had already been done in the world. It is most closely related to the US Constitution in its three branches of government, the Rajya Sabha(Senate) and Lok Sabha(House of Representatives). Its not a "lack of original thought" but seeing how well democracy had worked, the writers of the constitution just wanted what worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.165.127 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ! But can you tell me what is in Indian Constitution that is not "innovatively borrowed" ? (in the words of the current version of the article). Am I right in my understanding the Indian Government is a copy of British Parliamentary system ? US System seems to enforce individual accountability at every level (President at national level, Governor at the State level, Mayor at the city level). In the Indian System, everybody is accountable, which has meant nobody is accountable (and has led to disasterous inefficiency in the system). Naresh (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs in the constitution

I think that you should include the fact that Sikhs today do not accept this constitution as it shows that not everyone agrees with it. In the constitution, it refers to Sikhs as Hindus-Sikhs, signifying Hindus and Sikhs being the same thing. Sure, the founder of Sikhism was born into a Hindu family, but that doesnt make Sikhism similar to Hinduism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tidus3684 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Features of Indian Constitution or Fiction??????

Since its enactment, the constitution has fostered a steady concentration of power in the hands of the central government - especially the Office of the Prime Minister. This centralization has occurred in the face of the increasing assertiveness of an array of ethnic and caste groups across Indian society.

This wikipedia article lists the above as a feature of the Indian Constitution.... My knowledge about the constitution is not too good, but then I have " a little" common sense. What does ethnicity or castes have to do with the constitution? This kind of comments(Neither FACTS nor SENSE) definitely do NOT improve wikiproject india's credibility.... as well as undermining credibility of India and Indians ...... 210.19.225.8 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Kumar

Background

The 2nd paragraph of the section Background seemed out of place. The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph did not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.196.228 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialism?

Is there any more specific source/reference/info on socialism in the Indian Constitution? Any info would be welcome for the development of the Socialism in India article. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

the preamble shown is outdated, please update

the words socialist and secular is missing and they were added later.so plz. upload a a updated preamble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.130.186 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Renamed section "Features" to "Phylosophy"

Still working on this section. I will need some more time. Anyone willing to contribute, are most welcome. Sumanch (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Merger

I believe merger of official language with the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India will be more appropriate.Sumanch (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Indian Constitution - Recommend removal of subjective material from the article

The author of this section has advanced subjective criticisms and equally subjective justifications for these "criticisms". I recommend that this section be removed from this article as it is not in the spirit of Encylopedia.

Unwieldy- An unwieldy book for one may not be so for the other. The argument works both ways.
Unrepresentative - A verifiable criticism - however, unless this criticism is backed up by verifiable non-representation, this would not hold water.
Alien - A verifiable criticism - as we can have specific instances of borrowing from different constitutions. But, someone knowledgeable might be able fish out "original thought", or "innovative borrowing", in the constitution. --Naresh (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) nice page

It's been a couple of months since this complaint has first been leveled and no one has responded. While I'm far from an expert on the matters of Indian law, this section reads as a systematic defense of the constitution rather than a balanced perspective on criticisms that have been leveled. On this account, I'm going to go ahead and delete the section.

--Ben (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i believe that the criticism were justified in a sense but yes you are right that there was no reference or basis for the same and epecially with the NPOV policy of wikipedia it was worth deleting them. Nonetheless I suggest that we can keep the same in the talk page for future discussion and if someone can come out with the references of the same, we may as well put them back in the main article. What say?Tarun2k (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't stop you from keeping the criticisms in the talk section, but I found relatively little value in the section. It read like a rather simplistic essay designed to defend the Indian constitution from its critics rather than a discussion of criticisms. That being said, the general subtopics and introduction to the criticisms was acceptable, so perhaps someone could work with the existing section and create a respectable one. I don't know, do as you wish.

--Ben (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

800 Pound Gorilla

How come there is no mention that the Constitution of India is a barely disguised version of the Government of India Act of 1935? The Act of 1935 is the single most important antecedent, far more important that all the other constitutions so extensively paid homage to. It needs not only to be section 1.1 of the History, but also to be mentioned in the lead. Its absence here is surprising, since it is mentioned in many of the references cited in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, M. V. Pylee, in his Constitutional Government in India, says on the first page of text (p. 3), "The makers of the India Constitution drew ... especially much from the British-made Government of India Act of 1935. Thus the Constitution of India is the result of considerable imitation and adaptation rather than of originality." Then again two pages later, "The Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act, 1935, many of its provisions almost verbatim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what is it?

How come there is a whole article on the constitution of India and yet no author has yet bothered to include a link to the actual constitution? Would that not be relevant? Please don't tell me that there is no English language electronic copy of it anywhere.

Edward Carson (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the external links section I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carson, You can check the link to the "The constitution of India" to read fully at the following URL: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek1717 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the Union Government

I am sugesting removal of this section. This is an opinion of Dr. Ambedkar on what the executive branch of the Govt should be like. I believe it is more appropriate in the Govt. of India page than the constitution. Structure of the Union Government has been included in the Preamble. Sumanch (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg

The image File:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves needed for amendment articles

As an anon I can't do this myself. The titles now are currently inconsistent. Here they are:

Thirty-eighth Amendment to the Indian Constitution

Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Indian Constitution

Forty-second amendment of the Indian Constitution

First Amendment of the Constitution of India

(1) Should "Amendment" be capitalized, yes or no?

(2) Is the amendment "to" or "of" the constitution?

(3) Is the amendment to the "Indian Constitution" or the "Constitution of India"? 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing from the Constitution

There is no practical remedy against Judiciary of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.59.128 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New amendments are missing Lovelynikku (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Number of 'Articles' in the Constitution

There is a discrepancy in the number of 'articles' -- the overview section says there are 440 articles, but the section 'structure' says there are 448 articles. This needs to be corrected.

Also, when the constitution came into effect, there were only 395 articles.

It needs to be explained how new articles are added and how they came to be 440/448 as on date.

Even as on date, the official website for the government of India has the latest (2007) version of the constitution of India in PDF format -- and it has only 395 articles listed in 22 parts. (Do articles 371A, 371B, 371C, etc. count as different articles?)

No authentic information seems to be available online. Any expert in this area / published book sources may be useful in clearing up this confusion.

Raghuveer 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs)

=========

Subsequent to the above comment, I referred to the official website -- http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm

I copied all the contents pages into excel and counted them.

Note that article 232 was omitted in 7th amendment (230,231,232 were replaced by rephrased 230,231)

Also note that when a new article is inserted through an amendment, it is given a non-numeric number. Example: if a new article had to be inserted between 2 and 3, it was called "2A". Some articles were repealed (deleted) through amendments.

Now as per my reckoning,

No. of original articles: 395 No. of articles added (with non-numeric designations): 81 No. of articles repealed (deleted): 33 NET number of articles in effect as on date: 395+81-33=443

Request someone to please cross-verify this and update as necessary.

Some pages which do quote this number: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5ugDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=indian+constitution+%22443+articles%22&source=bl&ots=Ph9t0sEvpI&sig=wvP6QZq28Vebqy2xxatGpUyUg40&hl=en&ei=sk7HS_mzH8H-8AagwcD7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=indian%20constitution%20%22443%20articles%22&f=false

Thanks Raghuveer 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs)

File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Inputs needed

Around 12-13 "Parts of the Constitution of India" articles exist now, can be seen here Constitution_of_India#Parts. This one was at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Part One of the Constitution of India and the result was "delete without prejudice". And most of these articles are stub with 3-5 lines. I think as we already have these pages at Wikisource, we don't need them here at English Wikipedia? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 09:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian Constitution an overview

This fork has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

List of "notable constitutional lawyers"

I removed this section and was reverted by Amit.pratap1988, so I am bringing it here for discussion per WP:BRD. I think such a list is too much of a tangent that does not belong in this article. If it was to appear as a separate list in a different article, would be the inclusion criteria? It is such a subjective list, I think it distracts from the main topic, which is a very important article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe, I'm in favour of removing all names, but as of now I edited that list. Kept only very notable lawyers. Hope it will be accepted. Problem is that, in future anyone can add any name in that section. So it will be better to remove that section. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello guys Notable constitutional Lawyers of India need is relevant to constitution of India as these guys were among Constitutional expert.yes I agree not everyone should be added instead well known should be added.Amit.pratap1988 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Amit.pratap1988 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Amit.pratap1988 and Athomeinkobe:, don't you think that these names can be taken as WP:PROMOTION. As I earlier said that i'm in favour of removing this list of names. These lawyers are still working as lawyers and including their names in article of Constitution of biggest democracy in world can increase their weightage. People who are seeking for lawyer for their legal matters can prefer to choose these lawyers by seeing their name in article of Constitution of India. These lawyers can also ask for extra fees. So I'm completely against this list. Constitution is much bigger thing than these lawyers. There were and there will be thousands of such constitutional lawyers. I see no logic to mention their names. Whoever started this section must having intention of promotion. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:, I agree that promotional is one of the potential problems. But my bigger concern is about setting eligibility criteria for the list. For example, the articles on the American and Australian constitutions do not have such lists, because they are simply innappropriate. We started this discussion two days ago, so let's wait for more comments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours an IP user has tried to add Pranshu Pande (twice) and Pranjal Pande to the list of "notable lawyers". However, searching for these names in Google does not give any immediate evidence that there is a "notable constitutional lawyer" with one of those names. That is the problem with these lists - once it exists, people keep adding names, which often don't belong. That is another reason for saying that having no list at all is the better option. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Update required?

An IP recently posted "Please update latest news related to parts and shedule." under the list of schedules. Have there been any additions or changes that need to be identified in the article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Created by it

@SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha): The source you have cited don't have any phrases like "didn't exist before" and "created by it". How does this support the statement? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There is no need of any reference as the preamble of the Constitution itself is claiming like that. In the earlier constitution of British India, were there prime minister, president, parliament, etc. In British India constitution, viceroy is the supreme power and there was no elected member of parliament.183.82.199.109 (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source, and we are not allowed to interpret it. You definitely need an authoritative secondary source that says what has been claimed. I am removing the addition. It should not be re-added until reliable sources are presented and consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If you are so authoritative, you can remove as you like. But at least give authoritative secondary source contradicting what is written earlier. All the content is interpretations only depending on personal views/selections when treated in absolute manner. If your views are applied, most of the content in the article is to be deleted or innumerable references are to be given. The content in this article is far better than what it was three months earlier. Wikipedia has to decide whether to settle for substandard content or personal views of those authoritative persons. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the questionable content as per the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. There is no point debating it without producing a reliable source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You were not contributor of the content of this 'Page' not even a single word till now. How come you want to be at deciding level unilaterally without showing secondary source. You also do not want to reply the queries raised. If you do not agree with some content insert a note asking for suitable reference such that every reader knows about the abjection raised and apply their mind to judge the validity of the content or the 'objection note'. That is the better way of resolving the difference of opinions till a suitable solution/consensus is reached. I am doing so on your behalf. Thanks.183.82.199.109 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating forum. There is no point in discussing our "opinions" without having reliable sources at hand. It is fine to retain the content with a dubious tag, for now. But please look for sources if you want the content retained. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The constitution and the federalism

"Article 1 of the constitution declares that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Constitution mainly devised two level federal system with states at second level. The powers conferred by the constitution to the states can not be overridden by the Union/ federal government. It is the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution per Article 355 and shall not take any action which would impede governance of a state according to the Constitution. When a State has failed to work according to the Constitution, President’s rule is imposed till the situation is rectified under Article 356 and President takes over its (the State’s) administration with post facto consent of the Parliament per Article 357. Supreme court shall adjudicate the disputes between a state and centre or other states."

@Kautilya3: has deleted the above content placed by me in the article page saying unsourced and not relevant to the subject of the Article. The content source is given by referencing to the articles on the Constitution. Please indicate which sentence needs further reference. More over he is claiming Federalism is not relevant subject to to be added in the Page. Federalism is part of the basic structure of the constitution. Content restored back and @Kautilya3: needs to give proper acceptable reply to revert my content. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is not allowed to provide your own analysis of what is in it.

Secondly, this page is about the Constitution, not a discussion of what is written in it. See Constitution of the United States for a guide to what should be written on this page.

Finally, when an edit is reverted, you need to follow WP:BRD and achieve consensus on the talk page before reinstating it. At the moment, you are WP:EDITWARring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In line with your explanation of what should be covered in this page, please indicate whether Section "The constitution and the judiciary" should be deleted from the Page. Why are two different yard sticks? Real and plain meaning of the articles is added and it is termed as analysis of a individual. Articles 1 to 7 (including sub clauses and their contents) are discussed in the Constitution of the United States. Why are you misleading by citing incorrect references?

Please express your analysis of the quoted articles of the constitution and cite objectionable intent in my content. When subject is the topic of discussion, a senior and supposed to be knowledgeable editor need not take cover of his interpretation of dos and donts of content editing. It seems many WP editors like a situation of reverting graffiti /vandalism of content where content is blatantly vandalised frequently instead of overseeing content's quality enhancement. Enhancing the content is not the motive. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"The constitution and the judiciary" section is describing the role played by the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the constitution. It is not talking about the "duties of the judiciary" like you have tried to do in your addition. You show serious misunderstandings of how this article should be developed. In this article, the constitution is the subject, and we are writing about it. We don't use the constitution as a source to describe something else, such as the government or the judiciary etc. Pining SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark to see if they can explain to you better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

Structure

The Indian constitution is the world's longest constitution. At the time of commencement, the constitution had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules. It consists of almost 80,000 words. The Constitution, in its current form (September 2012), consists of a preamble, 25 parts containing 448

There are 460 articles, and not 448 as is mentioned, in the 25 parts of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, there have been 34 articles (not counting the 9 articles included under 99th amendment act that were quashed by the SC) repealed so far, which makes it 494 articles written into the constitution since its inception in 1951. For what it's worth I manually calculated the number of articles to make sure. To cite a reference as a confirmation, ISBN 978-93-5035-290-8, may be used.

Gourmetlonewolf (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: The ISBN you give is a publication of the Constitution of India itself. Perhaps a secondary source that claims "460" or "494" would be best, or it may be construed as original research. The current number is backed by a ref and note. Not done for now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104514/http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm to http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104514/http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm to http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://%5Bhttps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Names of the Indian Constitution in the official languages of India

Does not need its own article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - Could go into a Names section within the Main article or showcased in the sidebar. Solatido (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge, or deleteDelete. As it is it fails WP:NOTDIC. Batternut (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed my mind, NOTDIC applies to sections as much as to whole articles. Batternut (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge, doesn't deserve a separate article. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505192102/http://www.dayafterindia.com/magz_detail_news.php?id=4202 to http://www.dayafterindia.com/magz_detail_news.php?id=4202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarofication in drafting commitee member

On 29 August 1947, the Drafting Committee was appointed, with Dr B. R. Ambedkar as the Chairman along with six other members assisted by a constitutional advisor. These members were Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi (K M Munshi, Ex- Home Minister, Bombay), Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer (Ex- Advocate General, Madras State), N Gopalaswami Ayengar (Ex-Prime Minister, J&K and later member of Nehru Cabinet), B L Mitter (Ex-Advocate General, India), Md. Saadullah (Ex- Chief Minister of Assam, Muslim League member) and D P Khaitan (Scion of Khaitan Business family and a renowned lawyer

The members mentioned is 6 But 7 names are there Please clarify Madhavanep (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220030736/http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/ambedkar.htm to http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/ambedkar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022080607/http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/const/2004/index.html to http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/const/2004/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2018

On my screen, the phrase "Independence of the judiciary and separation of powers among the three branches of the government" takes nearly half the width of the screen. It's almost all on one line, even though the longer phrase "Power of the national legislature to make laws for implementing treaties, even on matters outside normal Federal jurisdiction" elsewhere in the section is split among three lines, courtesy of some line breaks. Could you add some <br> tags to break up the "Independence of the judiciary..." line? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I've made the columns equal width; I hope that's better. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Influence of Other Constitutions

• The US Constitution did not contribute the "Charter of Fundamental Rights" however the US Bill of Rights did serve as an influence. Replace "Charter of Fundamental Rights" with "US Bill of Rights". -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I have replaced the problematic entry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Although British common law and parliamentary structure influenced Indian constitution, the fact is that the United Kingdom does not have a formal constitution. Therefore, do we need to change the sub-heading?
• Canadian constitution was not ratified until 1982.How did it influence drawing up of Indian constitution? One can argue that Canada had dominion status before India etc. but then that needs to be stated.

Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: From what I gather, the Canadian constitution — though not ratified until 1982 — was still there in 1930s and 40s because of the Statute of Westminster 1931, so, while the Constitution of Canada wasn't "real" till 1982, much of it still existed before the Canada Act 1982; hence, I am in favour of not changing the current wording.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 08:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC); edited 09:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as UK goes, again, it's about influence; UK's constitution isn't codified, but it still is there in form of various laws, conventions, traditions, ordinances, statutes etc., so, again, a change in the wording isn't justified, in my opinion.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 09:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC); edited 09:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Scope of the article; request for opinion

So, I have got a bunch of books and stuff relating to the law in India, and hence, by extension the nation's constitution; I have got some questions regarding the scope of this particular article, though: (a) should things described in the constitution like the parliament and its structure?; or (b) the status quo be retained, with the article only talking about stuff related to amending the constitution and the limitations of each branch of the government; or (c) the sections talking about individual branches be TNTd. This may seem ordinary, but this article gets around 200,000 views a month, which is pretty damn high.

Any and all comments would extremely appreciable and welcome, though of course, participation is optional.

Pinging users who edit a lot of India and Indian law related articles — @Kautilya3:; @Adamgerber80:; @Abecedare:; @Capankajsmilyo:; @Gazoth:; @DBigXray:; @Pharaoh of the Wizards:; @Sitush:; and @Winged Blades of Godric:; and @Shyamsunder:.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• The target should be to take this page to GA once you are done with your books. I suggest looking at similar GA/FA pages from other countries and decide a similar structure based on that. Of course This page is unique and there will be special sections but this survey should help you achieve the target. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• The subject of this article is the Constitution, i.e., the document itself. Of course, to make it interesting as well as understandable, we have to say something about the subject matter of the constitution, but that matter is not what the article is about. The right kind of sources would be scholars that study constitutions rather than scholars that describe the constitution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Kautilya3. We should try to keep discussion of specific laws to a minimum unless they are defining features, vital to its history or something that sets them apart from other constitutions. —Gazoth (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Don't have strong views about this but the points mentioned above seem like a good approach to this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lack of separation of powers.

Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of India's government are not separated or kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances and is not present in the Indian constitution. It has given power and control to the legislative branch over executive and judicial branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C500:A2DD:9C47:48AB:F859:A1F9 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Please change the number of amendments from 101 to 103 because as on 28/1/19, the number of amendments in the Indian Constitution is 103. Snehil5959 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reporting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

{{subst:trim

>

T ser

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

improving the "special status" idea of this article

Currently there seems to be only 1 almost passing remark of "Article 370 gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.". This is common knowledge but the fact is, many other indian states have this "special" status and fingerpointing at J&k is not going to help anyone.

I will start working on the piece, On "special status" to Maharashtra and Gujarat

On "special status" to Nagaland

On "special status" to assam

On "special status" to manipur

On "special status" to Andhra Pradesh

On "special status" to Sikkim

On "special status" to Mizoram

On "special status" to Arunachal Pradesh

I hope to start with these citations and work from thereMhveinvp (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

182.156.199.218 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Image was wrong

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=916&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=kaa6XPWiApicvQSd_ZngBg&q=indian+constitution+original&oq=indian+constitution+original&gs_l=img.3..0l3j0i8i30l3j0i24l4.31163.35729..36020...0.0..0.108.773.8j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i67.E84mCweVdtM#imgrc=CrwZ2jOS_l_fqM:

 Not done: a) no actual request made, and b) the current lead image of the article (which I am assuming is the one to which you are referring) is an image of the preamble to the constitution. See [1] NiciVampireHeart 22:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Making of indian Constitution & Features

What is a Constitutionhttp://carnotclasses.com/images/Making-of-indian-Constitution-&-Features.pdf A constitution is a set of laws within framework of which a country is governed. The constitution lays down the basic principles and the processes of the country’s governance and touches upon all the aspects. These principles are superior to the other laws and cannot be violated. Constituent Assembly An assembly responsible for the task of framing a constitution is known as Constituent Assembly. Important Points: ▪ Total no. of sessions held by the Constituent Assembly – 11 over a period of 2 years, 11 month and 18 days. ▪ The constitution of 60 countries were gone through by the Constitution makers ▪ Total expenditure in making the Constitution – About 64 lakh ▪ Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is known as “The Father of the Constitution”. He is also known as “Modern Manu” and is “the chief Arhitect of the Constitution of India”. ▪ 26 January 1950 was chosen for commencement of The Constitution because on 26 January 1930, “The Purna Swaraj” day was celebrated. Ajaykumar1222 (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2019

As we know currently a new bill have passed named as Citizenship Amendment bill and is know an act under Indian Constitution so I request you to edit the no of amendments from 103 to 104 and total no. of bills proposed from 124 to 125. Pavbros (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 02:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is an amendment to The Citizenship Act, 1955 and in no way is considered a constitutional amendment. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Pls give me download

Sir I want to download but any one are not doenload. Ghosh1234 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• B.N. Rau Image.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

The image of the constitution says "“SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" but according to 42nd amendment 1976,this term has been changed to "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" 14.98.0.202 (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: That was how it was in the original image in 1950. so I dont think we can change history. DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing number of ammendment from 103 to 104 on homepage......

The information about number of ammendment given on right side of homepage is not right.Please cahnge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4056:D:2BBE:7C7D:20BE:CF72:F4DC (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Who wrote indian constitution?

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, is very well- known as its architect, but very little is known about the man who literally penned the Constitution. When the draft of the Constitution of India was ready to be printed, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wanted it to be handwritten in a flowing italic style. He approached the renowned calligrapher Prem Behari Raizada with the proposal of hand-writing the Constitution.

Prem Behari was born in Brahmin Family 1901 and came from a family of traditional calligraphists. He lost his parents when he was very young and was brought up by his grandfather Ram Parshad Saxena and uncle Mahashya Chatur Behari Narayan Saxena. Prem Behari’s grandfather was a scholar in Persian and an accomplished calligrapher, and he taught him calligraphy. Calligraphy is the art of producing decorative handwriting or lettering with a pen or brush.

When Nehru asked Raizada, he refused any payment for his hard and patient work. But he had one important request. He wanted to write his name on every page of the Constitution and on the last page write his name along with his grandfather’s name. Granting his request, the Government of India entrusted with Prem Behari the prestigious job of writing the Constitution in beautiful calligraphy. He was allotted a room in the Constitution Hall which later came to be known as Constitution Club. The original manuscript of the Constitution was written on parchment sheets measuring 16X22 inches, and these have a lifespan of a thousand years. The finished manuscript consisted of 251 pages and weighed 3.75 kg. In all, 432 pen holder nibs were used by Prem Behari for this calligraphy-writing of the Indian Constitution. The hand-written Constitution is also a work of art. The famous painter Nandalal Bose and his students designed the borders of every page and adorned them with beautiful art pieces, in the miniature style. The “Preamble” page was done by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha. They depicted some scenes from our national history. In doing so, they have created in the hand-written pages a gallery of some of the greatest figures of our national history. The Vedic period is represented by a scene of Gurukula, and the epic period by a visual of Rama, Sita and Lakshmana returning homeward and another of Krishna propounding the Gita to Arjuna on the battlefield.

There is a beautiful line drawing of Nataraja, as depicted in the Chola Bronze tradition. Then there are depictions of the lives of the Buddha and Mahavira, followed by scenes from the courts of Ashoka and Vikramaditya. Other great figures of our history who are represented are Akbar, Shivaji, Guru Gobind Singh, Tipu Sultan and Rani Lakshmibai. But it was the single-handed effort of Prem Behari Narain Raizada (Saxena) that brought to life the primary contents and the preamble to the Constitution. This manuscript was signed by the members of the Constituent Assembly on 24th January 1950. It was first signed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, while the last to sign in was Feroze Gandhi, the then President of the Constituent Assembly. Shivay.rohit (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Man Who Wrote Indian Constitution. Shivay.rohit (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an unfinished sentence in the introduction

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee and Benegal Narsing Rau, Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly[8][9] - sentence needs to be finished. I don't have editing access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysga lysga (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)