THE CONTEXT: Between 1895 and 1948, at least eight full constitutional drafts, ranging from the Tilak-inspired 1895 Bill to J. P. Narayan’s 1948 Socialist text debated everything from popular sovereignty to enforceable socio-economic rights. It provided the intellectual scaffold for the Constitution formally adopted on 26 January 1950.
THE BACKGROUND:
| YEAR | DRAFT (AUTHOR & SPONSOR) | IMMEDIATE TRIGGER & IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1895 | Constitution of India Bill (anonymously drafted; Tilak’s circle) | Dominion-status agitation after the Ilbert Bill controversy. Right-heavy liberalism. |
| 1925 | Commonwealth of India Bill (All-Parties Convention) | Frustration with Montagu–Chelmsford reforms; first detailed federal outline. |
| 1928 | Nehru Report (Motilal Nehru) | Simon Commission boycott; secular unitary plan with minority safeguards. |
| 1931 | Karachi Resolution (Indian National Congress) | After the Gandhi–Irwin Pact; marries civil freedoms with workers’ rights. |
| 1944 | Constitution of Free India (M. N. Roy) | Radical Democratic Party; participatory democracy & enforceable social rights. |
| 1944 | Hindusthan Free State Act (Hindu Mahasabha) | Right-wing response to Quit India; unitary state yet formally secular. |
| 1945 | Sapru Committee Report (Sir T. B. Sapru) | League–Congress deadlock; compromise federal safeguards. |
| 1946 | Gandhian Constitution for Free India (Shriman N. Agarwal, blessed by Gandhi) | Push for village republics after Cabinet Mission. |
| 1948 | Socialist Party Draft (Jayaprakash Narayan) | Left critique of the Constituent Assembly’s “bourgeois” draft. |
DEEP DIVE INTO EACH DRAFT:
Constitution of India Bill, 1895:
-
- Key provisions: 110 articles guarantee freedom of speech, inviolability of one’s home and equality before the law. Provinces enjoy legislative powers; the monarch retains a veto.
- Assessment: Pioneered an explicit bill of rights decades before Part III but remained dominion-focused and silent on economic justice, reflective of late-Victorian liberalism.
M.N. Roy’s Constitution of Free India, 1944:
-
- Rights: A majestic “Declaration of Rights” enshrines right of revolt and makes socio-economic guarantees of minimum wages, social security, compulsory education justiciable.
- Governance: People’s Committees elected annually supervise every tier, can initiate legislation and trigger referenda, thereby institutionalising direct democracy.
- Influence: Foreshadowed Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) but Constituent Assembly diluted enforceability.
Hindusthan Free State Act, 1944:
-
- Paradox: Proposes a unitary “one language, one culture” State yet embeds robust secular clauses (no State religion, no sectarian funding) and even grants the right to keep and bear arms.
- Notable oddity: Despite unitary leanings it allows provinces to secede under conditions revealing fear of Balkanisation if minorities felt unprotected.
Gandhian Constitution for Free India, 1946:
-
- Gram-swaraj confederation: Villages are sovereign for most functions; higher tiers handle defence, foreign affairs and large industries.
- Ethical frame: Rights are contingent on duties; Article 13 grants right to bear arms yet the draft’s tone is avowedly non-violent.
- Legacy: Influenced Article 40 (organisation of village panchayats) and Gandhian DPSPs (Articles 43 & 47).
Socialist Party Draft Constitution, 1948:
-
- Economic plank: “Property of the entire people is the mainstay of the State.” Private enterprise allowed only if consistent with workers’ interests.
- Political structure: Unicameral legislature representing workers, peasants and intellectuals; central planning commission answerable to Parliament.
- Critique: Detailed on redistribution but sketchy on judiciary, risking concentration in executive-planning nexus.
COMPARATIVE SYNTHESIS:
| Principle | Liberal (1895) | Participatory (Roy) | Unitary-Nationalist (Hindusthan) | Decentralist (Gandhi) | Socialist (SP-1948) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign | Parliament under Crown | The people directly | The people (unitary) | Village republics | The people via class chambers |
| Socio-economic rights | Absent | Enforceable & detailed | Limited | Subordinate to duties | Overriding priority |
| Right to revolt / arms | None | Revolt | Arms | Arms | None |
| Federalism | Proto-federal | Linguistic federation | Unitary but secession clause | Village confederacy | Federal with nationalised economy |
| Secularism | Tolerant pluralism | Explicit secular | Formal secular, cultural homogeny | Moral pluralism | Ban on denominational schools |
IDEAS THAT FILTERED INTO THE 1950 CONSTITUTION:
| DRAFT IDEA | WHERE IT SURFACED IN 1950 TEXT |
|---|---|
| 1895 civil liberties | Part III fundamental rights |
| Nehru Report single citizenship & equality | Arts 5–11 (citizenship), 14–16 |
| Karachi socio-economic rights | Non-justiciable DPSPs |
| Roy’s participatory oversight | Limited to Panchayats (Parts IX & IX-A) |
| Gandhian trusteeship & cottage industry | Article 43; DPSP on village panchayats |
| Hindusthan secular guarantee | Arts 25–28 religious freedom |
| Socialist state-directed economy | Arts 39(b-c) + Planning Commission (extra-constitutional) |
COUNTER-FACTUAL INSIGHTS & TODAY’S GAPS:
-
- Justiciable social rights: India still relies on Public-Interest Litigation to convert DPSPs into enforceable entitlements; an indirect echo of Roy rather than his direct model.
- Decentralisation deficit: Own-source revenue of Gram Panchayats averages only 6–7 percent of total receipts, leaving local bodies dependent on grants.
- Emergency powers: 44ᵗʰ Amendment (1978) softened but did not fully displace the wide berth granted in 1950; whereas Hindusthan draft’s safeguards were stronger on habeas corpus.
THE ISSUES:
-
- Political-economy centralisation: National parties hoard fiscal levers; state elites resist meaningful 3F (funds, functions, functionaries) devolution.
- Judicial capacity stress: Making socio-economic rights justiciable without strengthening subordinate courts risks docket explosion.
- Elite capture of Panchayats: Landed elites dominate where voter literacy or women’s representation is weak; direct democracy tools could be similarly captured.
- Plebiscitary populism risk: Roy-style referenda without safeguards may trample minority rights (Brexit-type lessons).
- Constitutional fatigue: Frequent amendments (106 as of July 2025) dilute normative reverence; meaningful public engagement is thin.
THE WAY FORWARD:
Framework Social Rights Act to convert selected Directive Principles of nutrition, primary health, social security into justiciable statutory guarantees; backed by ring-fenced cess.
Constitutional Local-Finance List: Amend Article 280 to earmark at least 10 percent of the divisible pool as untied grants for rural and urban local bodies, released via automated Public Financial Management System.
Participatory Budgeting Mandate: require districts receiving Aspirational Blocks funds to allocate 5 percent for projects chosen in Gram Sabhas, digitised on e-GramSwaraj dashboard.
National Social Audit Authority: Independent regulator to certify quality of social audits for flagship programmes; non-compliance triggers grant withholding.
School of Constitutional Literacy: Mass open-online course in Indian languages with Panchayat-level workshops to transform “subjects into citizens”—a nod to Roy’s political education ideal.
THE CONCLUSION:
India can harness the unrealised wisdom of its early drafts by convening a Second-Generation Constitutional Reform Commission to entrench an enforceable social-security floor and constitutionally earmark 10 percent of the divisible tax pool for local governments, igniting participatory growth for the nation’s 65 percent rural majority.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Did the Government of India Act, 1935 lay down a federal constitution? Discuss. 2016
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Participatory democracy is not alien to Indian constitutionalism; it was consciously pruned in 1950. Analyse in the light of M. N. Roy’s draft and the current status of local self-government.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word