What are the Criticism of Constituent Assembly?

The cabinet mission had visited India in the year 1946 and it was their idea to form the constituent assembly of India so that sovereign powers could appropriately be transferred from the British to Indian hands. India's self-determination principle could only be implemented with an acceptable and appropriate constitution. Read Below Concept and Criticism of Constituent Assembly.

Meaning of Constituent Assembly

The history of the constituent assembly reveals the proposal of M.N.Roy in 1934, which was taken forward to Congress and finally accepted by the British in 1940. The cabinet mission plan was finally executed in 1946 and elections were held for the formation of the constituent assembly. On 29th August 1947, the constituent assembly formed a Drafting Committee under the chairmanship of B.R.Ambedkar. The constitution of India finally was adopted in 1949 and on 26th January 1950, it came into force.

Concept of the Constituent Assembly

The members of the constitution known as the Magna Carta have the power to change the norms for functioning the political and social system of any territory. It is a perfect example of democracy.

Criticism of Constituent Assembly

There were many grounds on which many prominent and eminent persons criticized the Indian Constitution.

Not a representative body: the members of the Constituent assembly were not directly elected by the people of India depending on the adult universal franchise, but by representative of princely states and British provinces, so it cannot be considered as a representative body.

Not a sovereign body: the critics stated that the Constituent assembly took unreasonable time to form the Indian constitution and they held their session with British permission.

Time-consuming and derivative: the constituent assembly always took excessive time to make the constitution. They were termed as drifting committees rather than drafting committees. Criticism of Constituent Assembly on the ground that it was unoriginal and an assortment of different documents of many existing constitutions.

☛ Also Download: Daily Current Affairs PDF

Subjugated by congress: the critics put allegations on the constituent assembly stating that they had a strong influence on the congress party which tried to impose their ideologies as if the assembly was the congress and the congress was India. Granville Austin, an expert from Great Britain, remarked that the constituent assembly was a one-party body in an essentially one-party country.

Lawyer-politician domination: Criticism of Constituent Assembly by critics was also done because they were influential of lawyers and politicians and other segments of the society were least represented. Hence the constitution contains intricate language and is colossal.

Dominated by Hindus: the constituent assembly was devoid of religious conglomeration and mostly dominated by Hindus. In other words, it represented a major community of India as per Winston Churchill.

FAQs on Criticism of Constituent Assembly

Q1. Who was the chairperson of the constituent assembly of India when the Criticism of the Constituent Assembly was done?

Ans: Dr B. R. Ambedkar was the chairperson of the constituent assembly when the Criticism of the Constituent Assembly was done.

Q2. When did the Indian constitution come into force, after which Criticism of the Constituent Assembly was done?

Ans: The Indian constitution came into force on 26th January 1950 and Criticism of the Constituent Assembly was done on various grounds.

Q3. What are some of the major Criticism of the Constituent Assembly in regard to its sovereignty?

Ans: The critics questioned the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly as it took unreasonable time to form the constitution and that too in the proposal of the British Government and also no sessions were held without British permission.

Q4. On what grounds the Criticism of Constituent Assembly was criticised?

Ans: Dominated by the lawyers and the politicians and little influence of the other sections of the society, is the reason for criticism of the constituent assembly for its bulky and complicated language.