Criticisms of the Constituent Assembly

1. The Constituent Assembly was not directly elected and members of princely states were also nominated, so it did not represent the Indian public.

But the above criticism is not justified because direct elections to the Constituent Assembly were extremely difficult under the circumstances. For which the following reasons were responsible: - 

The national movement was at its peak. 

There was political instability. 

Communal riots were taking place in the country. 

There was not enough infrastructure and machinery to conduct elections. 

There was a lack of time. 

There was a lack of political awareness and education in the public. 

There was a lack of means of communication.

As far as the princely states are concerned, even an indirect election of members couldn't take place there because there were no public representative institutions in the princely states, which means there was a lack of infrastructure for elections and merging them in India was a main challenge.

2.The Constituent Assembly was not a sovereign body as it was formed on the basis of the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission.

          But the above criticism is not justified because:

On 15 August 1947, the Constituent Assembly became a sovereign body. It was completely free from the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission. 

The Indian Independence Act 1947 clearly stated that the Constituent Assembly would be free from the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission. 

The Constituent Assembly itself passed a resolution that it would take all its decisions independently.

3. Wastage of time: The Constituent Assembly of India completed the Constitution in 2 years,11 months and 18 days whereas the US Constitution was completed in just 4 months.

This criticism is not justified because-

• India and America had different conditions. India is a multicultural, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic country and our social structure is highly complex with many dis-advantaged and backward classes and tribes, so the Constitution had to make special pro-visions for the interests of all.While there was not so much diversity in American society, nor in the US constitution special provisions were made for the interests of the disadvantaged sections (people of American and African origin).
• Indian constitution is the largest constitution in the world, it had 395 articles whereas the US constitution is very brief which has only 7 articles.
• Indian constitution includes constitution of both Union and State i.e. states do not have separate constitution whereas US constitution is only constitution of Union and states have separate constitution.

4. Most of the members of the Constituent Assembly were from the Congress, therefore it only gave importance to the ideology of the Congress, other political ideologies were ig-nored.

This criticism is not justified because:

• Indian constitution is a balanced constitution; it does not have the influence of any one ideology but has given importance to all ideologies. 
• The draft of constitution was prepared by the Drafting committee. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar himself was not from Congress and Congress had only two members in the drafting committee (KM Munshi, VT Krishnamachari) However, the national movement was led by the Congress. The Congress was the largest political party. Its social base was more extensive so more members of Congress were elected in the Constituent Assembly.

5. Most of the members of the Constituent Assembly were Hindus. Therefore the Indian Con-stitution is influenced by Hinduism.

The above criticism is not justified because:

• The Constituent Assembly was elected with a proportionate representation system, be-cause the number of Hindus was more at that time, so they were elected in large numbers and after the partition of the country most of the Muslims became part of Pakistan, so the proportion of Hindus increased.
• Despite this, the Indian Constitution does not have religious implications. The Indian Constitution is a secular constitution. Rule of law prevails here. All are equal before the law.The state does not discriminate on the basis of religion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right.
• Therefore, it is fair to say that the Indian Constitution does not give special importance to any religion, but treats all religions in the same manner.

6. Most of the members of the Constituent Assembly were politicians and lawyers. The other sections were not given adequate representation in this and the language of the constitution is highly complex due to lawyers.

The above criticism is not justified because:

• The constitutions of most of the countries of the world are prepared by lawyers and leaders only because they are experts in the constitution. Politicians often represent all sections of society, so the members of the Constituent Assembly were representatives of different sections of society and the Indian Constitution has protected the interests of all sections of society. Special measures have been taken for the interests of weaker and disadvantaged sections.
• According to the British tradition, everything in the Indian Constitution has been explained in detail, so the language of the Constitution has become complex.