Q.) Examine the composition of the Constituent Assembly and assess the criticism that it was not fully representative of Indian society. (UPSC/RAS)

• The Constituent Assembly of India was set up in 1946 under the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission Plan to frame a constitution for independent India. It was neither elected on the basis of universal adult franchise nor directly by the people; instead, its members were elected indirectly by the members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies, following the principle of proportional representation through single transferable vote.

Composition of the Constituent Assembly

• On 15 August 1947 the Assembly became a sovereign body and also began functioning in a dual role - framing the Constitution and acting as the interim central legislature, with G.V. Mavalankar as Speaker. Women held 15 seats, including Sarojini Naidu and Sucheta Kriplani, and most members were drawn from the educated, professional and political class, with lawyers and politicians forming a large share.

Criticism that the Assembly was not fully representative

Absence of universal franchise - 

• Members were chosen indirectly by Provincial Legislators, and Princely State members were nominated, not elected, so critics say the Assembly did not truly speak for the people. However, direct elections on adult franchise were not feasible in 1946 given the ongoing freedom struggle, communal unrest and absence of election machinery, and the Princely States had no elected institutions at all through which even an indirect election could be held.

Congress dominance -

• With 208 of 296 seats, Congress held an overwhelming majority, so critics argue the Constitution mainly reflects Congress ideology. Yet this only reflected Congress' genuine mass base built over the national movement, and the Drafting Committee itself was headed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was not from Congress, showing that no single ideology monopolised the process.

Hindu majority character - 

• Hindus formed the largest community, leading some, including a British Viscount, to call it a 'Hindu body'. But the Hindu share rose mainly because most Muslims went to Pakistan after Partition, and the Constitution that emerged is thoroughly secular, guaranteeing equality and religious freedom to all citizens regardless of faith.

Elitist, legalistic composition -

• Many members were lawyers and politicians, so Ivor Jennings called it a 'lawyer's paradise', with ordinary peasants, workers and women having little real presence. Still, constitution-making needs legal expertise everywhere, and despite this profile the Constitution carries special safeguards for minorities, SCs/STs, backward classes and women.

Long time taken -

• The Assembly took nearly three years to finish the Constitution, compared to just four months for the US Constitution, leading to charges of delay and wastage of time. This is unfair, however, since India is far more diverse in religion, language, caste and region, and the Constitution had to make detailed special provisions for this diversity; it is also the longest constitution in the world and covers both the Union and the States, unlike the short US Constitution.

• Thus, while not perfectly representative in a strict electoral sense, the Assembly was the most broad-based body possible under the conditions of the time, and the enduring legitimacy of the Constitution it produced shows that these limitations did not undermine its representative character in substance.