Criticism of the Constituent Assembly
The critics have criticised the Constituent Assembly on various grounds.
These are as follows:
1. 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 universal adult franchise.
2. 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.
3. Time Consuming: According to the critics, the Constituent Assembly took unduly long time to make the Constitution. They stated that the framers of the American Constitution took only four months to complete their work.
4. 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 oneparty country.
5. Lawyer–Politician Domination: It is also maintained by the 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.
6. 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'.
Granville Austin wrote: “With the adoption of the Constitution by the members of the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, India became the largest democracy in the world. By this act of strength and will, Assembly members began what was perhaps the greatest political venture since that originated in Philadelphia in 1787.