Talk:Constitution of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

Background[edit]

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 63.125.196.228 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialism?[edit]

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the preamble shown is outdated, please update[edit]

the words socialist and secular is missing and they were added later.so plz. upload a a updated preamble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.130.186 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Renamed section "Features" to "Phylosophy"[edit]

Still working on this section. I will need some more time. Anyone willing to contribute, are most welcome. Sumanch (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Merger[edit]

I believe merger of official language with the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India will be more appropriate.Sumanch (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Indian Constitution - Recommend removal of subjective material from the article[edit]

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.

--Ben (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

--Ben (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

800 Pound Gorilla[edit]

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?[edit]

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.

Edward Carson (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the Union Government[edit]

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[edit]

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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves needed for amendment articles[edit]

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"? 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing from the Constitution[edit]

There is no practical remedy against Judiciary of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.59.128 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of 'Articles' in the Constitution[edit]

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.

Raghuveer 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talkcontribs)

=========[edit]

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

Thanks Raghuveer 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talkcontribs)

File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

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)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Inputs needed[edit]

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)

Indian Constitution an overview[edit]

This fork has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

List of "notable constitutional lawyers"[edit]

I removed this section and was reverted by Amit.pratap1988, so I am bringing it here for discussion per WP:BRD. I think such a list is too much of a tangent that does not belong in this article. If it was to appear as a separate list in a different article, would be the inclusion criteria? It is such a subjective list, I think it distracts from the main topic, which is a very important article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe, I'm in favour of removing all names, but as of now I edited that list. Kept only very notable lawyers. Hope it will be accepted. Problem is that, in future anyone can add any name in that section. So it will be better to remove that section. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello guys Notable constitutional Lawyers of India need is relevant to constitution of India as these guys were among Constitutional expert.yes I agree not everyone should be added instead well known should be added.Amit.pratap1988 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Amit.pratap1988 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Amit.pratap1988 and Athomeinkobe:, don't you think that these names can be taken as WP:PROMOTION. As I earlier said that i'm in favour of removing this list of names. These lawyers are still working as lawyers and including their names in article of Constitution of biggest democracy in world can increase their weightage. People who are seeking for lawyer for their legal matters can prefer to choose these lawyers by seeing their name in article of Constitution of India. These lawyers can also ask for extra fees. So I'm completely against this list. Constitution is much bigger thing than these lawyers. There were and there will be thousands of such constitutional lawyers. I see no logic to mention their names. Whoever started this section must having intention of promotion. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015:, I agree that promotional is one of the potential problems. But my bigger concern is about setting eligibility criteria for the list. For example, the articles on the American and Australian constitutions do not have such lists, because they are simply innappropriate. We started this discussion two days ago, so let's wait for more comments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours an IP user has tried to add Pranshu Pande (twice) and Pranjal Pande to the list of "notable lawyers". However, searching for these names in Google does not give any immediate evidence that there is a "notable constitutional lawyer" with one of those names. That is the problem with these lists - once it exists, people keep adding names, which often don't belong. That is another reason for saying that having no list at all is the better option. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Update required?[edit]

An IP recently posted "Please update latest news related to parts and shedule." under the list of schedules. Have there been any additions or changes that need to be identified in the article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Created by it[edit]

@SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha): The source you have cited don't have any phrases like "didn't exist before" and "created by it". How does this support the statement? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There is no need of any reference as the preamble of the Constitution itself is claiming like that. In the earlier constitution of British India, were there prime minister, president, parliament, etc. In British India constitution, viceroy is the supreme power and there was no elected member of parliament.183.82.199.109 (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source, and we are not allowed to interpret it. You definitely need an authoritative secondary source that says what has been claimed. I am removing the addition. It should not be re-added until reliable sources are presented and consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: If you are so authoritative, you can remove as you like. But at least give authoritative secondary source contradicting what is written earlier. All the content is interpretations only depending on personal views/selections when treated in absolute manner. If your views are applied, most of the content in the article is to be deleted or innumerable references are to be given. The content in this article is far better than what it was three months earlier. Wikipedia has to decide whether to settle for substandard content or personal views of those authoritative persons. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the questionable content as per the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. There is no point debating it without producing a reliable source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: You were not contributor of the content of this 'Page' not even a single word till now. How come you want to be at deciding level unilaterally without showing secondary source. You also do not want to reply the queries raised. If you do not agree with some content insert a note asking for suitable reference such that every reader knows about the abjection raised and apply their mind to judge the validity of the content or the 'objection note'. That is the better way of resolving the difference of opinions till a suitable solution/consensus is reached. I am doing so on your behalf. Thanks.183.82.199.109 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debating forum. There is no point in discussing our "opinions" without having reliable sources at hand. It is fine to retain the content with a dubious tag, for now. But please look for sources if you want the content retained. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The constitution and the federalism[edit]

"Article 1 of the constitution declares that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Constitution mainly devised two level federal system with states at second level. The powers conferred by the constitution to the states can not be overridden by the Union/ federal government. It is the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution per Article 355 and shall not take any action which would impede governance of a state according to the Constitution. When a State has failed to work according to the Constitution, President’s rule is imposed till the situation is rectified under Article 356 and President takes over its (the State’s) administration with post facto consent of the Parliament per Article 357. Supreme court shall adjudicate the disputes between a state and centre or other states."

@Kautilya3: has deleted the above content placed by me in the article page saying unsourced and not relevant to the subject of the Article. The content source is given by referencing to the articles on the Constitution. Please indicate which sentence needs further reference. More over he is claiming Federalism is not relevant subject to to be added in the Page. Federalism is part of the basic structure of the constitution. Content restored back and @Kautilya3: needs to give proper acceptable reply to revert my content. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is not allowed to provide your own analysis of what is in it.
Secondly, this page is about the Constitution, not a discussion of what is written in it. See Constitution of the United States for a guide to what should be written on this page.
Finally, when an edit is reverted, you need to follow WP:BRD and achieve consensus on the talk page before reinstating it. At the moment, you are WP:EDITWARring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
In line with your explanation of what should be covered in this page, please indicate whether Section "The constitution and the judiciary" should be deleted from the Page. Why are two different yard sticks? Real and plain meaning of the articles is added and it is termed as analysis of a individual. Articles 1 to 7 (including sub clauses and their contents) are discussed in the Constitution of the United States. Why are you misleading by citing incorrect references?
Please express your analysis of the quoted articles of the constitution and cite objectionable intent in my content. When subject is the topic of discussion, a senior and supposed to be knowledgeable editor need not take cover of his interpretation of dos and donts of content editing. It seems many WP editors like a situation of reverting graffiti /vandalism of content where content is blatantly vandalised frequently instead of overseeing content's quality enhancement. Enhancing the content is not the motive. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
"The constitution and the judiciary" section is describing the role played by the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the constitution. It is not talking about the "duties of the judiciary" like you have tried to do in your addition. You show serious misunderstandings of how this article should be developed. In this article, the constitution is the subject, and we are writing about it. We don't use the constitution as a source to describe something else, such as the government or the judiciary etc. Pining SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark to see if they can explain to you better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016[edit]

Structure

The Indian constitution is the world's longest constitution.[Note 1] At the time of commencement, the constitution had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules. It consists of almost 80,000 words. The Constitution, in its current form (September 2012), consists of a preamble, 25[Note 2] parts containing 448<ref>

There are 460 articles, and not 448 as is mentioned, in the 25 parts of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, there have been 34 articles (not counting the 9 articles included under 99th amendment act that were quashed by the SC) repealed so far, which makes it 494 articles written into the constitution since its inception in 1951. For what it's worth I manually calculated the number of articles to make sure. To cite a reference as a confirmation, ISBN 978-93-5035-290-8, may be used.


Gourmetlonewolf (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: The ISBN you give is a publication of the Constitution of India itself. Perhaps a secondary source that claims "460" or "494" would be best, or it may be construed as original research. The current number is backed by a ref and note. Not done for now. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Names of the Indian Constitution in the official languages of India[edit]

Does not need its own article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarofication in drafting commitee member[edit]

On 29 August 1947, the Drafting Committee was appointed, with Dr B. R. Ambedkar as the Chairman along with six other members assisted by a constitutional advisor. These members were Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi (K M Munshi, Ex- Home Minister, Bombay), Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer (Ex- Advocate General, Madras State), N Gopalaswami Ayengar (Ex-Prime Minister, J&K and later member of Nehru Cabinet), B L Mitter (Ex-Advocate General, India), Md. Saadullah (Ex- Chief Minister of Assam, Muslim League member) and D P Khaitan (Scion of Khaitan Business family and a renowned lawyer

The members mentioned is 6 But 7 names are there Please clarify Madhavanep (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).