Yesterday, I picked up an intellectual but highly contentious argument with my beloved friend Miss Carina Williams as to whether or not the Constitution of India is the copied form of the Constitution of other countries, especially of the American Constitution. My said friend buttressed her argument of copied form by advancing this plea, i.e., both the Constitutions of India and America begin with the expression 'WE THE PEOPLE' and as the American Constitution came first; it was 'WE THE PEOPLE' of India who copied the said expression. I argued that then why from the outset 'WE THE PEOPLE' of India have allowed universal adult suffrage including the women to cast their vote, however, the Americans at the outset did not allow women their voting rights, if we had been the copy master then why we took 2 years 11 months and 17 days to architect our Constitution, while the Americans took only 100 days to frame theirs and why 'WE THE PEOPLE' of India wrote 1,17,369 words to illuminate our will on a mere paper converting it into a Constitution whereas the Americans took only 4,400 words to do theirs and why since 1791 the American Constitution has been changed only 27 times but 'WE THE PEOPLE' of India since 1950, have changed ours for 105 times and if it is indeed a matter of copy and paste then why 2000 changes were been made to the first draft our Constitution before it was been finalised on November 26, 1949. She had almost put the nail in the coffin by arguing that these are repercussions of copying not from one Constitution but many. I remained taciturn for two minutes and then in a surrendering voice asked my said friend— "How you have developed such a scintillating intellect?" She, with pride, apprised me "from reading books of various natures". Then I again asked— "Do you believe that without reading such books, authored by others but not by you, you could have advanced your last electrifying argument?" She answered— "never!" I said, "Mate your last answer is my final argument as to why 'WE THE PEOPLE' of India are not a copy master but rather an inquisitive being because we traversed many constitutions to acquire knowledge and thereby have developed our own as learning from others does not mean coping from the same".

Is it necessary to write what we want?

Yes, a Constitution cannot be a myth that would be passed orally from generation to generation. Moreover, the will of the people when expressed in words and been read out with its soul is indeed that which makes it unwavering. 'WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA' have written our constitution, the vehicle of our destiny, by our hand but not typed or printed it and artists from Shantiniketan have been responsible for decorating each page of the Constitution. 

Now, the meteoric name of Late Nanabhoy Palkhivala is inevitable when we endeavour to understand the Constitution and recall the vote-bank amending prone Government of late Indira Gandhi. In the Keshavanada Bharti Case wherein Justice H.R. Khanna who in most of his initial written lines was concurring with the other 6 justices of 13 justices bench, constituted in that said celebrated case, of the Supreme Court, that the Parliament has the power to amend every part of the Constitution including the Part- 3 thereby making the majority of that said bench to hold that the Parliament can snatch away any fundamental right by amending the Part-3 of the Constitution, has in his lordship’s, as then was, last few lines penned that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but without changing the basic structure of it thereby making the majority by 7:6 to hold that fundamental rights cannot be amended to that extent whereby the basic structure of the Constitution will change. It was late Palkhhivala who had relentlessly argued the case and persuaded the majority to hold such. Justice Khanna enunciated "It was not Nani who spoke. It was Divinity speaking through him". The habeas corpus case, before the 5-Judges bench of the Supreme Court of India, during the cumulonimbus cloud of the Emergency period wherein the then-Attorney General Of India Mr Niren De, erstwhile student of Hazra Law College, in answer to a question posed to him by that said bench that was- whether during the Emergency a person could be shot without any remedy. Niren De vociferously answered that so long as the Emergency continues, the court could do nothing even if such an event occurs as fundamental rights cannot be enforced during the Emergency. The verdict of that said case was 4:1. 4 held that fundamental rights cannot be enforced during the emergency thereby holding that a person can be shot without any remedy but again Justice Khanna stepped in although without any legal effect and enunciated that Article 21 is a human right given by the nature and not by the Constitution and habeas corpus is the enforcer of that right and therefore even during Emergency habeas corpus will be enforceable and that dissenting judgment cost Justice Khanna the office of the Chief Justice of India. The pertinent point is that late Nani Palkhivala did not appear in this case to oppose the government as he felt that 7 High Courts have pronounced well-reasoned judgments holding that fundamental rights cannot be snatched during the Emergency and therefore the Supreme Court will dismiss the appeal of the government at the very outset but his absence proved to be fatal. I.C Golaknath vs the State of Punjab, The Privy Purses Case, The St Xavier case, The Minerva Mills Case, The Mandal Case, The Election Commission case, etc. all of these cases have been argued by late Palkhivala and when I endeavour to understand the Constitution with these defining cases, among many other names, the name of Late Nanabhoy Plahivala instinctively and intrinsically starts echoing in my soul and mind and I regret that why I born so late that I missed the glimpse of my posthumous guru. I have seen advocates buttering their client and late Palkhivala had refused the brief of Mrs Gandhi when she as the Prime Minister compelled the President to proclaim Emergency.

Wasn't it a mistake by the framers to make the fundamental rights enforceable but not the Directive Principles of State Policy?

Politically speaking— No, but constitutionally and logically speaking— Yes. In simple words, the Directive Principles of State Policy are the vehicles for reaching the destinations which are the numerous fundamental rights. Hence if you can't claim the vehicles then how will you be able to reach your destinations? One argues that to enforce the Directive Principles of State Policy, the State needs to have resources, my simple answer to them is that look at the lifestyle and check the Swiss bank accounts of the descendants and ascendants of the politicians and the debt of their jealous misters namely Late Harshad Mehta, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Malia, etc, you will get an inundation of resources.

The Indian Constitution is the consequence of many censored and uncensored historical quintessential gems of history but that does not mean that it has only been an arduous effort of the history as because till now 105 changes have been made in our Constitution that connotes that our Constitution is subject to change for responding to the imminent future. I have always asked this question to myself that why ‘WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA’ as I was not there when the Constitution was been architected and enforced so how could I be a part of ‘WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA’ then one day I heard Mr Fali Sam Nariman, who is one of the legal doyens of the present time, demystifying that we the generation after generation have become a part of ‘WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA’ through the subsequent amendments made by our elected representatives.

It is a matter of record that on September 2, 1953, Dr Ambedkar asserted that he is ready to burn the Constitution as it has been decreased to be a document of majority and minority wherein majority says we cannot recognize minority because that will harm democracy. He also proposed during the making of the Constitution the expression ‘United States of India’ but failed to convince the assembly and we adopted the Westminster Parliamentary expression that ‘Union of India’.

It is said that ‘men and women will die but the Constitution will survive’. And yes it is right because we do not merely apprise our next generation that there has been Constitution that I heard from my predecessor but we show them the bare text of the Constitution evidencing that yes it exists.