What Baba Saheb Said About Constitutional Amendments?

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Perspective on Constitutional Amendments: Safeguarding Democracy and Flexibility

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, had profound views on the amendment provisions of the Constitution. Recognizing the importance of adaptability in governance, he advocated for a balanced framework that would allow changes without undermining constitutional integrity. This insight shaped Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, governing the procedure for amendments. Ambedkar believed in a flexible yet resilient Constitution, capable of evolving with the changing needs of society while protecting democratic principles. His views continue to be relevant today as India grapples with numerous amendments reflecting social, economic, and political shifts.

1. The Need for a Flexible Constitution

Dr. Ambedkar’s first priority was to make the Constitution an enduring document that could respond to unforeseen circumstances. He believed that if a Constitution was too rigid, it would struggle to accommodate societal changes and would lose relevance over time. However, he also feared that excessive flexibility could lead to instability and the erosion of core democratic values. Ambedkar often said that a rigid constitution could lead to “deadlock” in the government, while a flexible constitution could allow the government to better serve the people.

Ambedkar famously stated in the Constituent Assembly debates: “While we have amended the Constitution, we must keep in mind that an amendment is not a rewriting of the Constitution.” For him, the objective was to permit adaptation without compromising on essential principles, thereby balancing continuity with change.

2. Amendment as a Mechanism to Realize Social Justice

A staunch advocate of social justice, Ambedkar saw the amendment provision as a way to implement progressive reforms over time. His experience with social issues and his understanding of India’s diverse population influenced his stance. He recognized that Indian society was evolving, and its legal framework would have to accommodate this transformation, especially concerning issues like caste discrimination, gender equality, and economic rights.

Ambedkar viewed the Constitution as a “social document,” primarily focused on empowering marginalized communities and addressing historical injustices. He understood that to achieve genuine social justice, future legislators might need to modify or expand constitutional provisions to better reflect the aspirations of all citizens. Thus, the amendment procedure was essential to ensure that India could address its societal inequities and progress toward a more inclusive democracy.

3. Safeguarding Fundamental Rights

Ambedkar’s views on amendments were closely tied to his commitment to protecting Fundamental Rights. He was wary of any amendments that could erode the core rights granted by the Constitution. Ambedkar feared that in the hands of an autocratic government, unchecked amendment powers could be wielded to curtail civil liberties or suppress dissent. This concern was particularly relevant in a young democracy where authoritarianism could emerge if unchecked.

Fundamental Rights were enshrined in Part III of the Constitution as unassailable principles. Ambedkar emphasized that amendments affecting these rights should be subject to rigorous scrutiny to prevent arbitrary changes. Although the Constitution does allow for the amendment of Fundamental Rights, Ambedkar believed that these amendments should be exceptionally rare and justified only by a clear and compelling public interest.

4. Balancing Rigidity and Flexibility in Article 368

The structure of Article 368, which outlines the amendment process, reflects Ambedkar’s nuanced view on flexibility. Dr. Ambedkar proposed a two-thirds majority in Parliament for most amendments, which he believed would prevent impulsive changes to the Constitution. This requirement was not overly rigid yet ensured that amendments could only pass with substantial consensus.

He also allowed for a distinction between “ordinary” amendments and “major” amendments that affected the federal structure or certain Fundamental Rights. Major amendments require the approval of not only the central government but also a majority of state legislatures, providing a protective layer to India’s federal structure. In this way, Ambedkar’s framework sought to preserve state autonomy and prevent undue centralization of power. This dual requirement demonstrated his understanding of India’s federal diversity and his intent to respect the authority of state governments.

5. Limits to Amendment Power and the Basic Structure Doctrine

Ambedkar’s vision for the amendment process also implicitly anticipated the idea of the “basic structure doctrine,” though the doctrine itself emerged after his time. The basic structure doctrine, articulated by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, holds that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be amended. Although Ambedkar did not explicitly mention this doctrine, his statements suggest that he believed certain elements of the Constitution were sacrosanct and beyond amendment.

Ambedkar highlighted that the Constitution is the “law of the land” and that amending it should be a responsibility treated with utmost respect. His apprehensions about unrestricted amendment power pointed toward the need for a doctrine like the basic structure doctrine. He believed that values such as democracy, secularism, and social justice must not be compromised, even through formal amendments.

6. Concerns About Potential Abuse of Amendment Power

Despite his support for constitutional amendments, Ambedkar was aware of the potential misuse of this power. He cautioned against amendments driven by political motives rather than public welfare, warning that such changes could undermine the Constitution’s integrity. His concerns were rooted in historical precedents, where political leaders in other countries had altered their constitutions for personal gain or to consolidate power.

Ambedkar wanted to create a safeguard against similar misuse in India. His fears were realized during the 1975-77 Emergency, when the 42nd Amendment was passed, altering several parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, to strengthen executive powers. This period underscored Ambedkar’s wisdom in advocating for a system of checks and balances, as the amendment power was nearly misused to compromise democracy itself.

7. A Vision for Generational Responsibility

Ambedkar regarded the amendment provision as a mechanism for future generations to adapt the Constitution without overhauling it. He believed that each generation would face unique challenges and should be empowered to refine the Constitution in ways that addressed contemporary issues. Ambedkar’s pragmatism in this regard is evident from his statement: “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.” By allowing room for amendments, Ambedkar envisioned a living document that evolved in step with India’s social and political landscape.

8. Ambedkar’s Legacy in Modern Constitutional Debates

Dr. Ambedkar’s ideas on constitutional amendments have become increasingly relevant in contemporary India. The Constitution has undergone numerous amendments to address various issues, such as socio-economic reforms, federal-state relations, and the protection of individual rights. His cautious approach and emphasis on restraint provide valuable lessons for current policymakers. Ambedkar’s vision for a Constitution that is both dynamic and enduring has shaped debates about amendments and constitutional interpretation in India’s political and judicial spheres.

Conclusion

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s perspective on constitutional amendments reflects a delicate balance between flexibility and caution. He envisioned an adaptable Constitution that could grow with society’s changing needs while protecting core democratic principles. Ambedkar’s faith in the amendment process was grounded in his belief that it could serve as a tool for social progress and justice, ensuring that the Constitution remained relevant across generations.

Ambedkar’s approach continues to be a guiding force in modern India, reminding policymakers and citizens alike that while amendments can address pressing needs, they must always uphold the spirit of the Constitution. His legacy emphasizes that the power to amend is both a privilege and a responsibility, one that should be exercised thoughtfully to honor the Constitution’s role as the bedrock of Indian democracy.