Class | Subject | Book | Chapter | Session | Questions covered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XI | Political Science | Indian Constitution at Work (NCERT) | 1 – Constitution: Why and How? | 2026-27 | 10 of 10 |
Chapter at a glance
Idea | Key point |
|---|---|
Functions of a constitution | Creates trust and co-ordination among people; specifies how government is formed and its powers; limits government power; guarantees rights; expresses aspirations and shared values |
Authority | A constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people who accept it |
Making of the Indian Constitution | Constituent Assembly (1946–49), President Dr Rajendra Prasad, Drafting Committee chaired by Dr B.R. Ambedkar |
Objectives Resolution | Moved by Jawaharlal Nehru in December 1946; basis of the Preamble |
Sources | Borrowed and adapted from several countries and the Government of India Act, 1935 |
Balance | Power is divided among the legislature, executive and judiciary and between the Union and states |
Exercise Questions
Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
a. It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen.
b. It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government.
c. It ensures that good people come to power.
d. It gives expression to some shared values.
Answer
Answer
A constitution guarantees rights (a), divides power between branches (b) and expresses the shared values of society (d). It cannot ensure that good people are elected; that depends on voters, parties and political culture.
- It ensures that good people come to power.
Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
a. The constitution was framed before the parliament came into being.
b. The constitution makers were more eminent leaders than the members of the parliament.
c. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
d. The constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.
Answer
Answer
Parliament itself is created by the constitution: the constitution decides how it is formed and what its powers are. So Parliament cannot be above it. Option (a) is only a matter of time, (b) is about eminence, and (d) is wrong since Parliament can amend the constitution (within the basic structure).
- The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.
a. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.
b. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.
c. Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.
d. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
Answer
Answer
Part | True / False | Reason |
|---|---|---|
a | True | A constitution lays down how the government is formed and what powers it has |
b | False | Non-democratic countries also have constitutions, although they may not limit the rulers |
c | False | A constitution also expresses the ideals and values of society (e.g. in the Preamble) |
d | True | It makes people citizens of a political community with shared identity and rights |
a – True, b – False, c – False, d – True
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
a. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens.
b. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.
c. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
Answer
Answer
(a) Incorrect. The Assembly was elected indirectly by the provincial assemblies, which were themselves elected on a limited franchise, but it represented all sections of the people: different communities, regions, castes, women and political parties (the Congress, Muslim League and independents). It also kept in touch with public opinion and invited comments. Its legitimacy came from its wide representation and from the acceptance of the Constitution by the people.
(b) Incorrect. Leaders broadly agreed on the framework (democracy, rights, sovereignty), but there were many major decisions needing long debate: the electoral system, the federal structure and the division of power, language, rights of minorities and reservation, the role of the judiciary, and the Directive Principles. The Assembly held debates for nearly three years to settle them.
(c) Incorrect. Ideas and provisions were borrowed (for example, parliamentary government from Britain, Fundamental Rights from the USA, Directive Principles from Ireland, and much from the Government of India Act, 1935), but they were adapted to Indian needs and combined with original features, such as universal adult franchise from the beginning and the special provisions for the weaker sections of society. Borrowing carefully is a mark of wisdom, not a lack of originality.
- Incorrect (b) Incorrect (c) Incorrect – reasons as given.
Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:
a. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.
b. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
c. The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.
Answer
Answer
(a) Credible leaders
- The Assembly included leaders of the national movement such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and Rajendra Prasad, who commanded the respect of the people.
- Dr B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) and members from many groups, including women such as Sarojini Naidu and Hansa Mehta, took part, which gave the Constitution wide acceptance.
(b) Power distributed to make subversion difficult
- Separation of powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary, with an independent judiciary to check the others.
- Federal division of powers between the Union and states (Union, State and Concurrent Lists), and independent bodies such as the Election Commission.
(c) Hopes and aspirations of the people
- The Preamble promises justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
- Fundamental Rights and universal adult franchise, the abolition of untouchability, and the Directive Principles for the welfare of all.
Credible leaders (Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar), separation of powers and federalism, and Preamble/rights show the three conclusions.
Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
Answer
Answer
Why it is necessary
- It prevents conflict between the different organs of government (legislature, executive, judiciary) and between the Union and states.
- It makes each authority accountable for its work and makes people know who is responsible.
- It prevents misuse and concentration of power in one hand.
- It ensures smooth and efficient administration since each body knows its field.
In its absence: there would be confusion and overlapping of functions, frequent disputes over authority, passing the blame, misuse of power by a strong authority, and possibly a collapse of the rule of law.
A clear division of powers avoids conflict and misuse; without it, authority would be confused and open to abuse.
Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
Answer
Answer
Limitations on rulers are needed because unlimited power tends to be misused. A constitution places limits so that rulers cannot act arbitrarily, to protect the rights and freedom of citizens, and to ensure that the government rules by law and not by personal will. Fundamental rights, separation of powers and judicial review are such limits.
A constitution with no power for citizens? Such a document is possible on paper in authoritarian systems (for example, monarchies or one-party regimes), but it would not be a true constitution of the kind that protects people, as it would make citizens subjects. In a democracy, the citizens are the source of power, so the constitution must give them rights such as voting and the freedom of expression.
Limits stop misuse of power and protect rights; a genuine, democratic constitution cannot give no power to citizens.
The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Answer
Answer
Problem: a constitution made under the control of an outside power lacks legitimacy and independence. It may not reflect the real wishes and values of the people, and may seem imposed, which weakens people’s loyalty to it. Its makers could not freely choose.
Indian experience
- The Constituent Assembly was made up of Indians chosen by Indians (though indirectly), and it met after independence, so there was no outside control over what it decided.
- Members debated every provision freely and took decisions on the basis of Indian needs and the ideals of the national movement.
- The Constitution was framed over about three years, in public discussion, with an Assembly that had the faith of the people.
An imposed constitution lacks legitimacy; India’s Constitution was framed freely by an Assembly of Indians after independence.
Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
Answer
Answer
As the teacher, I would tell Rajat:
- It is not outdated. The Constitution is a living document: it can be amended (over a hundred times) and the courts interpret it to meet new needs, while its basic values of liberty, equality and justice remain relevant.
- Your consent is there. It was made by the representatives of the people, and in a democracy you take part by voting, electing the representatives who can change laws, and by speaking up.
- Its language is formal because it is a legal document, but its ideas are simple. I’d help him read the Preamble and rights, and there are simple editions.
- Why obey it? It protects your rights (education, speech, equality), makes sure that the government itself follows rules, and keeps order and fairness in society. If everyone chose which rules to obey, there would be chaos.
It is a living, amendable document made by the people’s representatives, which protects Rajat’s own rights and keeps society orderly.
In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:
a. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.
b. Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.
c. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position?
Answer
Answer
I agree most with Nazima, and also with Harbans.
- Harbans is right: India has held regular free elections, changed governments peacefully, and kept democratic institutions and an independent judiciary working for over seven decades.
- Neha raises a real concern: inequality, discrimination and poverty still exist, so the promises are not fully met. But this is a failure of implementation, not of the document, which gives the tools (rights, courts, directive principles) to correct them.
- Nazima’s view: the Constitution is only a framework. Whether its ideals are achieved depends on citizens, leaders and institutions. Where we have not acted on them, it is we who have failed.
My position is that the Constitution has succeeded as a framework, but the realisation of liberty, equality and fraternity remains an unfinished task for all citizens.
The Constitution has given a sound democratic framework; where promises remain unfulfilled, the failure lies in how we implement it.
Topic checklist
- ☒ Functions of a constitution (Q1, Q3, Q6, Q7)
- ☒ Authority and legitimacy (Q2, Q8, Q9)
- ☒ Making of the Indian Constitution (Q4, Q5)
- ☒ Working of the Constitution (Q10)