Talk:Constitution of India
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution of India article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Constitution of India received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 26, 2013.|
- 1 Background
- 2 Socialism?
- 3 the preamble shown is outdated, please update
- 4 Renamed section "Features" to "Phylosophy"
- 5 Suggested Merger
- 6 Criticism of the Indian Constitution - Recommend removal of subjective material from the article
- 7 800 Pound Gorilla
- 8 Yes, but what is it?
- 9 Structure of the Union Government
- 10 Image copyright problem with File:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg
- 11 Page moves needed for amendment articles
- 12 Missing from the Constitution
- 13 Number of 'Articles' in the Constitution
- 14 File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion
- 15 Inputs needed
- 16 Indian Constitution an overview
The 2nd paragraph of the section Background seemed out of place. The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph did not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there any more specific source/reference/info on socialism in the Indian Constitution? Any info would be welcome for the development of the Socialism in India article. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
the preamble shown is outdated, please update
Renamed section "Features" to "Phylosophy"
Criticism of the Indian Constitution - Recommend removal of subjective material from the article
The author of this section has advanced subjective criticisms and equally subjective justifications for these "criticisms". I recommend that this section be removed from this article as it is not in the spirit of Encylopedia.
Unwieldy- An unwieldy book for one may not be so for the other. The argument works both ways.
Unrepresentative - A verifiable criticism - however, unless this criticism is backed up by verifiable non-representation, this would not hold water.
Alien - A verifiable criticism - as we can have specific instances of borrowing from different constitutions. But, someone knowledgeable might be able fish out "original thought", or "innovative borrowing", in the constitution. --Naresh (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) nice page
It's been a couple of months since this complaint has first been leveled and no one has responded. While I'm far from an expert on the matters of Indian law, this section reads as a systematic defense of the constitution rather than a balanced perspective on criticisms that have been leveled. On this account, I'm going to go ahead and delete the section.
- Well i believe that the criticism were justified in a sense but yes you are right that there was no reference or basis for the same and epecially with the NPOV policy of wikipedia it was worth deleting them. Nonetheless I suggest that we can keep the same in the talk page for future discussion and if someone can come out with the references of the same, we may as well put them back in the main article. What say?Tarun2k (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't stop you from keeping the criticisms in the talk section, but I found relatively little value in the section. It read like a rather simplistic essay designed to defend the Indian constitution from its critics rather than a discussion of criticisms. That being said, the general subtopics and introduction to the criticisms was acceptable, so perhaps someone could work with the existing section and create a respectable one. I don't know, do as you wish.
800 Pound Gorilla
How come there is no mention that the Constitution of India is a barely disguised version of the Government of India Act of 1935? The Act of 1935 is the single most important antecedent, far more important that all the other constitutions so extensively paid homage to. It needs not only to be section 1.1 of the History, but also to be mentioned in the lead. Its absence here is surprising, since it is mentioned in many of the references cited in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- For example, M. V. Pylee, in his Constitutional Government in India, says on the first page of text (p. 3), "The makers of the India Constitution drew ... especially much from the British-made Government of India Act of 1935. Thus the Constitution of India is the result of considerable imitation and adaptation rather than of originality." Then again two pages later, "The Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act, 1935, many of its provisions almost verbatim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what is it?
How come there is a whole article on the constitution of India and yet no author has yet bothered to include a link to the actual constitution? Would that not be relevant? Please don't tell me that there is no English language electronic copy of it anywhere.
- Check the external links section I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carson, You can check the link to the "The constitution of India" to read fully at the following URL: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek1717 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Structure of the Union Government
I am sugesting removal of this section. This is an opinion of Dr. Ambedkar on what the executive branch of the Govt should be like. I believe it is more appropriate in the Govt. of India page than the constitution. Structure of the Union Government has been included in the Preamble. Sumanch (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg
The image File:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Page moves needed for amendment articles
As an anon I can't do this myself. The titles now are currently inconsistent. Here they are:
- Thirty-eighth Amendment to the Indian Constitution
- Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Indian Constitution
- Forty-second amendment of the Indian Constitution
- First Amendment of the Constitution of India
- (1) Should "Amendment" be capitalized, yes or no?
- (2) Is the amendment "to" or "of" the constitution?
- (3) Is the amendment to the "Indian Constitution" or the "Constitution of India"? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Missing from the Constitution
Number of 'Articles' in the Constitution
There is a discrepancy in the number of 'articles' -- the overview section says there are 440 articles, but the section 'structure' says there are 448 articles. This needs to be corrected.
Also, when the constitution came into effect, there were only 395 articles.
It needs to be explained how new articles are added and how they came to be 440/448 as on date.
Even as on date, the official website for the government of India has the latest (2007) version of the constitution of India in PDF format -- and it has only 395 articles listed in 22 parts. (Do articles 371A, 371B, 371C, etc. count as different articles?)
No authentic information seems to be available online. Any expert in this area / published book sources may be useful in clearing up this confusion.
Subsequent to the above comment, I referred to the official website -- http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm
I copied all the contents pages into excel and counted them.
Note that article 232 was omitted in 7th amendment (230,231,232 were replaced by rephrased 230,231)
Also note that when a new article is inserted through an amendment, it is given a non-numeric number. Example: if a new article had to be inserted between 2 and 3, it was called "2A". Some articles were repealed (deleted) through amendments.
Now as per my reckoning,
No. of original articles: 395 No. of articles added (with non-numeric designations): 81 No. of articles repealed (deleted): 33 NET number of articles in effect as on date: 395+81-33=443
Request someone to please cross-verify this and update as necessary.
Some pages which do quote this number: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5ugDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=indian+constitution+%22443+articles%22&source=bl&ots=Ph9t0sEvpI&sig=wvP6QZq28Vebqy2xxatGpUyUg40&hl=en&ei=sk7HS_mzH8H-8AagwcD7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=indian%20constitution%20%22443%20articles%22&f=false
File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf)
Around 12-13 "Parts of the Constitution of India" articles exist now, can be seen here Constitution_of_India#Parts. This one was at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Part One of the Constitution of India and the result was "delete without prejudice". And most of these articles are stub with 3-5 lines. I think as we already have these pages at Wikisource, we don't need them here at English Wikipedia? -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 09:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)