Criticism Of The Constituent Assembly
The critics have criticized the Constituent Assembly on various grounds. These are as follows:
- Not a Representative Body: The critics have argued that the Constituent Assembly was not a representative body as its members were not directly elected by the people of India on the basis of a universal adult franchise.
- Not a Sovereign Body: The critics maintained that the Constituent Assembly was not a sovereign body as it was created by the proposals of the British Government. Further, they said that the Assembly held its sessions with the permission of the British Government.
- Time-Consuming: According to the critics, the Constituent Assembly took an unduly long time to make the Constitution. They stated that the framers of the American Constitution took only four months to complete their work. In this context, Naziruddin Ahmed, a member of the Constituent Assembly, coined a new name for the Drafting Committee to show his contempt for it. He called it a “Drifting Committee”.
- Dominated by Congress: The critics charged that the Constituent Assembly was dominated by the Congress party. Granville Austin, a British Constitutional expert, remarked: ‘The Constituent Assembly was a one-party body in an essentially one-party country. The Assembly was the Congress and the Congress was India’⁹.
- Lawyer-Politician Domination: Is also maintained by critics that the Constituent Assembly was dominated by lawyers and politicians. They pointed out that other sections of the society were not sufficiently represented. This, to them, is the main reason for the bulkiness and complicated language of the Constitution.
- Dominated by Hindus: According to some critics, the Constituent Assembly was a Hindu-dominated body. Lord Viscount Simon called it a body of Hindus. Similarly, Winston Churchill commented that the Constituent Assembly represented ‘only one major community in India’.