Criticism of the Constituent Assembly

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 one-party country. The
Assembly was the Congress and the Congress was India’9.
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’.