Limitations

It would be wrong to conclude from the previous section that the Constitution of India is a perfect, flawless document — and this section is deliberately distinct from the criticisms just discussed, since a limitation the framers themselves acknowledged is a different kind of shortcoming from an external critique levelled against the document. Given the social conditions under which the Constitution was actually made, it is only natural that many matters within it remain genuinely controversial, and that there are areas that still need careful revision — many features of the Constitution emerged mainly out of the pressures and exigencies of that particular historical moment. Even so, it is important to admit honestly that the Constitution carries real limitations. Three are briefly mentioned here. First, the Indian Constitution rests on a fairly centralised idea of national unity — even while it accommodates regional and linguistic diversity through asymmetric federalism, its underlying conception of unity leans towards the centre rather than being genuinely balanced between the Union and the states. Second, the Constitution appears to have glossed over some important issues of gender justice, particularly within the family — matters such as unequal inheritance rights or unequal standing regarding children were not squarely addressed as constitutional guarantees of equality. Third, it remains unclear why, in a country as poor and as much in need of development as India was at independence, certain basic socio-economic rights (such as rights connected to work, education, or a minimum standard of living) were relegated to the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy rather than made an integral, enforceable part of the Fundamental Rights themselves. It is possible to offer explanations for why each of these limitations exists, and even, in some cases, to argue that they can be overcome through later amendment, legislation or judicial interpretation — but working out those expla …