Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2634929

CONTOUR OF MODERN REPUBLICANISM AND INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

Prayas Dansana

INTRODUCTION

Applicability of political philosophy is indeed a major concern in the contemporary

time. A better understanding on different precepts of political philosophy will set a functional

link between philosophy and functional policy. Undoubtedly, it will be more useful then.

The present discourse is an endeavour to understand the one of the oldest and foremost

concept of political theory, i.e. 'Republic', from India Constitutional law perspective. In the

present deliberation, the author refrains from scrutinising the functional aspects of 'Republic

of India'; concentration is on reading the modern perception of a 'Republic' as explored by

modern political scientists and linking the same with the Constitutional structure of India.

What is the need to have a study on it, now? Republicanism, as a civic virtue, is declining in

the contemporary social nature of modern politics. It is obvious from the growing

undercurrent of mistrust and hostility of the ordinary citizens against government activities.

Unfortunately, State action has become the problem, and not solution. There is visible failure

and inability of the law making agencies of the government to press forward any of its policy

objectives in concert with fundamental ethos of the nation. Ultimate success and

effectiveness of public policy depends upon the persons who works them and the public laws

are worked. This necessarily postulates that persons ( including citizens) who are to operate

the system must be attached to the basic values and ideology of the system. The underlying

assumption of all constitutional structures that each succeeding generation must share the

faith and allegiance to value of the Constitution (Khanna, 2013). One such value for India is

'Republic' and 'Republicanism'. Against this modern challenges of contemporary polity,

Professor Michael Sandel has suggested that classical republican ideals are needed for the

woes of the today's polity (Maynor, 2003)1. Advocating and preaching of practice of

'Republicanism' without a clear and consistent sense of understanding will generate further

Lecturer, Post Graduate Department of Law, Sambalpur University 1 Michael Sandel in Democracy's Discontent (1996): 1 John W Maynor, 'Republicanism in the Modern World', 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p 1;

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2634929

mistrust amongst citizen. Since major decisions with reference to governance of the country

lack neutrality and overpowered by individual and political parties choices and preferences, it

is causing widespread disenchantment in the political process. Party or individual political

agenda of 'liberal procedural republic' is and will create disempowerment. The classical

republican forms of citizenship and civic virtue help to fill the apparent gap between State,

community, citizen and individual.

REPUBLIC & REPUBLICANISM

In political science literature, the word 'Republic' is used in, various senses. In a

narrow sense, it is used simply in opposition to 'Monarchy', and means a form of government

under which the head of the executive is chosen by the people'. The term “Republic” denotes

that the head of the State is not a hereditary monarch but an ‘elected functionary’ (Jain,

2007)2. A Republic is a Government, not by a single person, but by a collegial organisation

more or less numerous. But, it is not oligarchy or class-rule. In wider sense, Republic denotes

a government where no one holds the public power as a proprietary right, but all powers are

exercised for the common good where the inhabitants are subjects and free citizens at the

same time.

The central tenant of Republican theory is the importance of collective discussion and

self-direction3 (Abrams, 1988) for governance in a political structure. It is generally

understood that a republic form of governance, the source of public powers lies with the

people for their own common good and welfare. James Madison, one of the leading

contributors of Federalist Papers4 and curators of US Constitution, used the terms in the

Federalist Papers to illustrate the concept of a nation overseen by governing body that was

not only appointed by its citizens, but also perpetually motivated by the interests of the same

citizens5. Contrary to monarchy or any other form of totalitarian ruling body, it was outlined

2 M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Vol I, 5th edition (2007), p. 14 3 Kathryn Abrams, Law’s Republicanism, The Yale Law Journal, Vol 97,No 8 Symposium: The Republican Civic Tradition (jul., 1988)p. 1591 – 1608 (p.1592) 4 The American colonies in 1776 gain their independence from British Monarchy and were brooding on to establish an accepted form of government that would counter the previous monarchical rule of Britain. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay presented a framework of governmental process and structure that contradicted the maxims of a monarchy. 5 Madison, Federalist No. xxxix – “ Republic is a government which derives its powers directly or indirectly fro the great body of the people , and its administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class …..”

by Madison that Republicanism was a political archetype in which citizens were not only

given the opportunity to choose their own government bur were given the opportunity to

choose to allow themselves to be governed. The attempt was to place the general citizens on a

tier above their respective governing body.

The idea of ‘Republicanism’ is directly linked with against the notion of inheritance

and succession. It is an ideology which rejects the divine right of the ruler ( King) and makes

the people sovereign with inalienable rights as well as individual liberty. The concept of

'republic' is that of a State in which the people are supreme, there is no privileged class and

all public offices are open to every citizen without any discrimination. It is a theory where

impression is on what would promote the good of the community; it’s all about community.

Republicanism is tied with the idea of ‘representation’. It is an approach to the State, which

rejects traditional monarchy. It is a political conception advocating ‘independence from

arbitrary power’. It denotes a regime in which citizens shall conduct their common affairs for

the common good. It emphasises participation of people in governance. Republicanism

presupposes that laws should be made by active citizens working in concert.

In the aforesaid backdrop, let's examine how the modern political thinkers have

visualised the contents of 'Republicanism'.

TWO MODELS OF REPUBLICANISM & LIBERTY OF INDIVIDUAL

Modern Republic and Republicanism has a long tradition of thinking and can be

traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman writers. Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Harrington

and Madison furthered the said thinking process. However, there is two distinct versions of

'Republicanism' as espoused by political theorists. According to John W Maynor6 (Maynor,

2003), a common error in contemporary understanding is to view classical republicanism as

simply the opposite of monarchy. Further, he criticises the understanding of equating

republicanism with the principle of governments conducting the common business of the

people in the name of the common good. John W Maynor has classified Republic and

Republicanism into two models: Neo-Athenian Model and Neo- Roman Model.

NEO-ATHENIAN MODEL: This model basically inspired by Aristotle and civic

humanism. It holds individuals are social or political animals whose essential nature is most

fully reallised in a democratic society in which there is widespread and vigorous participation

6 John W Maynor, 'Republicanism in the Modern World', 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p 1 -31

in political life. This version of republicanism maintains that political participation is a

intrinsic good in a certain version of human flourishing. It is often associated with

communitarians. It stresses direct participation in the governing process as a way of realizing

true freedom. The act of participation itself helps to constitute certain ultimate goods that

contributes to individual well-being and self-mastery. This involves citizens understanding

their freedom as part of a certain type of community and belonging to that community as an

active member.

NEO-ROMAN MODEL: Neo-Roman republicanism is characterised by "a

constitution in which government was built on a democratic foundation but was better

devised to guard against problems of fraction, demagoguery and tyranny". Roman had

adopted tools such as the 'dispersion of democratic power across different assembles ,

adherence to a more or less strict rule of law, election to public office, limitation on the

tenure of public office, rotation of offices among the citizenary, and the like'. Neo-roman

model focuses on creating the institutional arrangements that preserve individual freedom. It

does not stress conformity to a singular ideal of human excellence. Like neo-Athenian model,

this model too tresses participation and civic goods. But, at the same time, it also stresses the

need for strong laws to pursue their chosen ends. Under neo-Roman model of republicanism,

collective freedom and civic activity were important features, but individual freedom and

security became paramount. The Neo-Roman model guarantees individuals a degree of

personal freedom which is unavailable under neo-Athenian model. The sense of liberty found

in neo-Roman republicanism is more suited to the demands of today's world.

It is important to note that emphasis on 'liberty' of individual were given in both the

models. But, understanding on 'liberty' in both the model is distinct. Republican conception

of liberty is non-domination. It can be defined as freedom - a sort of structural independence

– as the condition of not being subject to the arbitrary power of a master.7 In the neo-

Athenian model, liberty is associated with living in a free state or community. It undermines

the cause of individualism by promoting values and virtues that subjected the individual self

to the will of the common good. It is characterised by a collective enterprise that consists of

individuals acting together to form a community. Within this community, an individual's

freedom is secondary to the liberty and authority of the community. Rousseau advocated

liberty of such nature. He favoured a collective enterprises to establish the General Will,

7 www.platostanford.edu/entries/republicanism (last accessed in 19/03/2015)

which would always be aimed at serving the common good over individual self-interests. It

was his thinking that only through participatory community that individuals could free

themselves from the tyranny of the society and be able to achieve a moral freedom that would

lead them to self-mastery. Whereas in the neo-Roman Model, liberty promotes the right of

the individual from unnecessary interferences. it frees the individual from the domination of

the common good by securing 'the enjoyment of security in private pleasures' and ensures a

protected space within which to act freely. The modern republican conception of liberty is

defined as a sort of structural independence. According to Philip Pettit8, republican

conception of freedom is non-domination. It is different from non-interference. It is rather

more than absence of interference; it requires security against interference, in particular

against interference on an arbitrary basis. It is a condition of not being subject to the arbitrary

or uncontrolled power of a master (Pettit, 2002). Pettit9, philosophically, puts the republican

conception of freedom as: 'a person or group enjoys freedom to the extent that no other

person or group has the capacity to interfere in their affairs on an arbitrary basis." In short, it

can be articulated that liberty as visualised under neo-Roman Model is centred on individual

freedom and independence from the community.

Can there be a relationship or connection between these two models? John W Maynor

acknowledges the relationship and observed that the two strands of Republicanism coexisted,

thought it is complicated and complex (Maynor, 2003)10. Modern Republic and public

relationship is held together by the complex interdependent relationship between non-

domination, conflict, citizenship and civic virtue. The sense of liberty as advocated in neo-

Roman version has been given priority and at the same time the substantive civic values of

community of neo-Athenian model is recognised and acknowledged.

DECLARATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF UNION OF INDIA INTO A

REPUBLIC:

It is said that the word ‘Republic’ is invented by Roman and the same was

subsequently advocated by the Greek11 (Everdell, 1891). But, the notion of republican form

of governance is not new to Indian Civilization or ancient Indian political system. The study

of the Vedas in the light thrown by the anthropomorphology of the Vedic Indians goes to

8 Philip Pettit, Republicanism - A theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 17-79 9 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism (last accessed in 19/03/2014) 10 John W Maynor, 'Republicanism in the Modern World', 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p 15; 11 William R Everdell, The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, University of Chicago Press, 2000,P.3

show that they had no hereditary monarchical institutions. During the Vedic period, people

lived under an elective monarch and duration of such elected ruler depended on his character

and good conduct. People seemed to have regulated their affairs of the settlement by an

assembly of the people called samiti (Shamshastri, 1930). Such rulers were more or less a

servant of the assembly of the people. The assembly was all powerful and could impeach,

dethrone and banish a king. However, during the period of Upanishads, presumed to lie

between 2000 B C and 100 BC, elective monarchy was replaced by hereditary monarchy

(Shamshastri, 1930)12. Sri S. Radhakrishnan, during the course of debate on the 'Objective

Resolution' in the Constituent Assembly, said (Rao, 2004)13 :

“We cannot say that the republican tradition is foreign to the genius of this country.

We have had it from the beginning of our history. When a few merchants from the

north went down to the south, one of the Princes of the Deccan asked the question.

‘Who is your King?’ The answer was, ‘Some of us are governed by assemblies, some

of us by kings.’ (Kecid deso ganadhina kecid rajadhina.) Panini, Megasthenes and

Kautilya refer to the Republics of Ancient India. The Great Buddha belonged to the

Republic of Kapilavastu.”

Some historians affirm (Havell, 1891) (Duttm, 1906) (Stein, 2010)14 on ancient Indian history

that there were practice of 'republican form of governance' in some parts of India. Janpada or

communities as State used to functions in the notion of republican values. Those Janapada

were existed from about 800 BC to the time of Kautalya's Arthashastra (Stein, 2010)15.

Those janapada or community were functioning more in the form of neo-Athenian model of

republic. Though, there were traces of a kind of republican form of governance in certain area

of India, it was not that popular in India. V.P.Menon, one of the unsung hero of integration

of Princely States in India, in his books - 'The Story of Integration of Indian States' (Menon,

1955)16 and 'The Transfer of Powers in India' (Menon, The Transfer of Power in India,

1957)17 mentioned about the difficulties of integrating all those 554 Princely States to new

Indian Republic. Considering the immediate history and legacy of kingship in India,

12 R Shamshastri, Forms of Government in ancient India, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1930), p 1-24 13 CAD, Vol II, dated 20/01/1947 14E.B.Havell, The History of Aryan Rule in India from earliest time to Death of Akbar,(George G Harrap & Co. Ltd)(1891) p. 38 & 68; Romesh Chunder Duttm History of India, Vol I, The Grolier Society (1906), p. 298 ; Burton Stein, A History of India ( 2nd edition), Wiley Blackwell (2010), p. 22-23 15 Burton Stein, A History of India ( 2nd edition), Wiley Blackwell (2010), p. 22-23 16 V P Menon, The story of the integration of the Indian States, 1955, Longmans Green & Co 17 V P Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, 1957, Princeton University Press

Republican form of Government did not seem to be an first choice. But, from the events

before the independence of India and transcripts of the Constituent Assembly Debate, it is

evinced that the intellectual leaders and makers of Indian constitution had consciously opted

to establish India into a 'Republic'. In the annual session of Congress 1946 at Meerut18, a

resolution was adopted that 'Congress stood for an independent sovereign Republic of India,

wherein all power and authority would be derived from the people'. It further declared that

swaraj (self-governance) could not be real for the masses, unless it made possible a society in

which democracy extended form the political to the social and economic spheres, in which

there would be no opportunity for the privileged classes to exploit the bulk of the people.

The Constituent Assembly of India not only drafted a ‘Constitution’ for India, but also

gave the people a new framework of life. One of the prime tasks for the members of the

Constituent Assembly was to synthesis the people existing faith with the vision of new India.

When the Constituent Assembly met on 9th December 1946, one of the earliest tasks to which

it addressed itself was to declare the basic objectives and guiding principles to be kept in

view in the processes of constitution-making of new India. On 13th December 1946, Pandit

Jawahar Lal Nehru presented the historic “Objective Resolution” before the Constituent

Assembly. The Assembly discussed it for five days from 13th December to 19th December

and again resumed their discussion for another three days from 20th January to 22nd January

1947. Then, the “Objective Resolution” was unanimously approved and adopted by the

members of the Constituent Assembly on 22nd January. Though “Objective Resolution” was

not part of Indian Constitution, but it is definitely laid down the foundation of new

constitutional orders of Independent India. According to Mr Krishna Sinha (Rao, 2004)19, it

is ‘sacred’, since it contained the vision of future of India and expressed the aspiration to be

free which had stirred them in their struggle for independence. Dr M R Jaykar, representing

Bombay in the Constituent Assembly said that “ Objective Resolution is a very vital

resolution and it lays down the essentials of the next constitution”. On the context of the

present discourse on ‘Republicanism’, quoting the very first line of the text of “ Objective

Resolution” will be most appropriate:

18 V P Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, (1957, Princeton University Press, p. 327 19 Mr Krishna Sinha, Members of Constituent Assembly, Bihar. He was the first Chief Minister of Bihar. Under his leadership, Bihar was first in the country to abolish ‘zamindari’ system.

“This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim Indian

as an Independent Sovereign Republic and to draw up for her future governance a

Constitution;”

While presenting the Objective Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Pandit Nehru had

emphasised that ‘a free India can be nothing but a Republic’20. Sri S Radhakrishnan21 while

presenting his views on ‘Objective Resolution’ asserted about the wish to bring about a

fundamental alteration in the structure of Indian society and suggested to abolish every

vestige of despotism. He debated that “Princes may continue; Princes will be there so long as

they make themselves constitutional so long as they take themselves responsible to the people

of the States”22.

Mr Krishna Sinha, in support of the 'objective resolution' affirmed that future of India

‘is to be a democratic and decentralised republic, in which the ultimate sovereignty is to lie

with the people’23.

Discussion and adoption of Preamble of the Constitution of India was one of the last

acts of Constituent Assembly. Numbers of amendments were moved during the process of

adoption of the Preamble. But, at no time, none of the members of Constituent Assembly had

argued or moved a motion for replacing the word 'Republic' which indicates the resolute

desire to establish India into a 'Republic'. In fact some of the members, such as Sri S

Radhakrishnan, Dr Raghu Vera, Sri Kamalapati Tiwari asserted that the concept of

Republicanism was not foreign to India (Kashyap, 2004). It will not be out of place to quote

the observation of Dr Rajendra Prasad, President of Constituent Assembly:

"The first and the most obvious fact which will attract any observer is the fact that we are

going to have a Republic. India knew republics in the past olden days, but that was 2,000

years ago or more and those republics were small republics. We never had anything like the

Republic which we are going to have now, although there were empires in those days as well

as during the Mughal period which covered very large parts of the country. The President of

20 CAD, Vol I. Pandit Nehru while putting forth his arguments on Objective Resolution said, “It is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereign republic. Indian is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it is bound to be a republic. I will not go into the arguments about monarchy and the rest, but obviously we cannot produce monarchy in India out of nothing. It is not there. If it is to be an independent and sovereign State we are not going to have an external monarchy and we cannot have a search for some local monarchies. It must be inevitably a republic.” 21 CAD, Vol II, dated 20/01/1947 22 CAD, Vol II, dated 20/01/1947 23 CAD, Vol I, dated 16/12/1946

the Republic will be an elected President. We never have had an elected Head of the State

which covered such a large area of India. And it is for the first time that it becomes open to

the humblest and the lowliest citizens of the country to deserve and become the President or

the Head of this big State which counts among the biggest States of the world today."24

The solemn resolution to constitute India into a Republic will suo moto not become a

reality, unless adequate structural arrangements are worked out. Indian Constitution has made

adequate provisioning for establishment of a Republic. Now, important points to brood is -

whether the Indian Republic was designed in neo-Athenian Model or neo-Roman Model? To

answer this, we have to check the structural arrangement that were made in the Indian

Constitution.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A REPUBLIC &

REPUBLICANISM:

Indian constitution has a detailed structure for establishment of a Republic. This

detailed structured has further been buttressed with constitutional law and practices as

explored time to time by constitutional agencies. Let's discuss some of those key legal

structures as designed under the constitution.

I. SOURCE OF PUBLIC POWER WITH PEOPLE: It is well established

norms that in a ‘Republic’, the supreme public power is held by the people and the

administration is open to all the citizens. Political freedom is most fully realised in a genuine

Republic of equal citizens under the rule of law, where no one citizen is the master of any

other. Freedom in the republican sense is the enjoyment of non-domination. Freedom is the

upshot of rightly ordered laws, institutions and norms25. The assertion of establishing India

into a Republic or practising ‘Republicanism’ is an indication of assertion of ‘Sovereignty of

the People’ in Indian polity.

Framers of Indian Constitution envisaged establishment of new India having the

features that of a Republic. However, nowhere in the text of Indian Constitution it is declared

that the sovereign power of the State is derived from the people. But, this inference can only

be drawn from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Dr B R Ambedkar26, responding to

the question of whether the Constitution acknowledge, recognise and proclaim that it

24 CAD, Vol XII, dated 26/11/1949 25 www.platostanford.edu/entries/republicanism (last accessed in 19/03/2015) 26 CAD Vol X, (dated 17/10/1949)

emanates from the people, emphatically asserted that it does. For the said purpose, he referred

to the declaratory portions of the Preamble which reads as "We, the People of India ..... .... ....

do hereby adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution". From some quarter, it is

criticised that the Constituent Assembly did not had the people's mandate as they were

constituted on a narrow franchise. Responding to such criticism as mooted by Sri Mahavir

Tyagi, Dr B R Ambedkar responded27 :

"It is quite true that it is not a Constituent Assembly in the sense that it includes every

adult male and female in this country. ..... ..... ..... . I would like honourable Members to

consider also the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. I shall read a portion of

it. It says: "we the people of the United States"-I am not reading the other parts--"We the

people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of

America". As most Members know, that Constitution was drafted by a very small body. I

forget now the exact details and the number of the States that were represented in that small

body which met a Philadelphia to draw up the Constitution. (Honourable Members There

were 13 States). There were 13 States. Therefore, if the representatives of 13 States

assembled in a small conference in Philadelphia could pass a Constitution and say that what

they did was in the name of the people, on their authority, basing on it their sovereignty. I

personally myself, do not understand, unless a man was an absolute pedant, that a body of

people 292 in number, representing this vast continent, in their representative capacity, could

not say that they are acting in the name of the people of this country."

Let's read the Preamble of Indian Constitution in this way: “We, the people of India

..... in our Constituent Assembly this 26th day of November 1949 do hereby adopt, enact, and

give to ourselves this constitution.” These words indicate that people of India have created a

constitution and handed over to themselves. Though, this is factually not true as the

constitution was framed by an assembly which was elected indirectly on a limited franchise

and, unlike US Constitution28, it is not ratified by the People after it is drafted by the

Constituent Assembly, it is founded on the consent and acquiescence of the people29.

Acharya Dr Durga Das Basu, a doyen of Indian Constitutional law, emphasised that the

republican and democratic character of the polity and that all power ultimately stems from the

27 CAD Vol X, (dated 17/10/1949) 28 Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316, while delivering on the question of whether Constitution proceeded from the People, he did not take the shelter under Preamble, which is similar to that of India. He referred to the historical facts that the constitution was ratified by the people in the State conventions and hence constitution preceded from the people. 29 D D BAsu, Commentary on The Constitution of India, Vol I, 8th Edition 2007,Wadhwa Nagpur, P. 387

people30. It is indeed the foundational assumption of Indian democracy that sovereign and

supreme powers vested with the People. Supreme Court of India has long back given the

stamp of legality to this understanding31.

II. ELECTED HEAD OF THE STATE WITH FIXED TENURE: Indian constitution

embodies the parliamentary or cabinet system of Government following the British model.

Under the said system, the President is the constitutional or formal head of the Union and

exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid

and advice of his council of Ministers. Article 52 of Indian Constitution says, "There shall be

a President of India". During the Constitutional Assembly Debate, an amendment motion was

moved by Prof K T Shah to substitute the incumbent provision with " The Chief Executive

and Head of the State in the Union of India shall be called the President of India." Prof K T

Shah wanted that there should be "some indication of the status and power of the President ...

whose position and title should be made a little more clear and definite." Dr B R Ambedkar

argued against the said amendment and clarified that The President of the United States could

be called the Chief Executive since he was not bound by the advice of the Secretaries of the

various departments and it was not going to be so in the case of India. The amendment was

negated. But the debate ensued on such proposed amendment made it clear that the position

of President of India is conceived as that of a constitutional head of State32. As per Article

53(1)33, the executive power of the Union of India is vested in the President and it has to be

exercised by him in accordance with the constitution. The Supreme Court of India through

various decisions34 has upheld the position that the President is a constitutional head who

must act in accordance with the Constitution. Significance of status of President can be

judged from the provision of Article 5335 which is mandatory36 in character. It means that the

President shall always be there in all circumstances. It is also imperative as the executive

power vested with the President and it is not possible to envisage the functioning of the

30 Dr D D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 13th Edition (2009)Wadhawa Nagpur, p.8 31 Union of India vrs Madan Gopal Kabra, AIR 1954 SC 158 – “Our Constitution, as it appears form the Preamble, derives its authority from the people of India.” 32 CAD Vol VII (dated 10/12/1948) 33 Article 53(1): The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. 34 Samsher Singh vrs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192; U N Rao vrs. Indira Gandhi AIR 1971 SC 1002; M/s Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan vrs State of UP AIR SC 33; Ram Jawaya vrs State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 544 35 Article 52 : There shall be a President of India. 36 U N R Rao vrs Indira Gandhi AIR 1971 SC 1002

scheme of the Constitution and the political system in the absence of a person in the office of

the President.

As discussed earlier, a Republic, as contra distinguished form monarchy, must have

an elected head of the State. Since India is a Republic , there has to be an elected head of the

State, i.e. President. The President of India is the elected head of the Republic of India. But,

he is not directly elected by the people. It will be not out of place to note that during

discussion on the draft article on electoral process of election of the President of India, it was

proposed that the President should be elected by adult franchise37. Such amendment was

ruled out since the real public power was designed to be with the Council of Ministers. As per

Article 54, the President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of

only elected members of both the houses of Parliament and of State Legislative Assemblies.

This indicates that the President of India is indirectly elected by members of an electoral

college. It may be noted here that contrary to the general impression, in fact, the U.S.

President is also elected by an electoral college even though that is differently constituted

through a system of primaries held to elect an electoral college only for the Presidential

election.

The term of the office of the President is fixed for 5 years. Article 56 (1) provides that

the President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon

his office. It is indeed another feature of Indian Constitution which formalise the claim that

India is a Republic. In addition to the above, there is also provision for impeachment of

President in case of 'violation of the Constitution'. Article 56(1) lays down that the President

may be removed from his office by impeachment only on the grounds of violation of the

Constitution. Article 61 of the Constitution provides the procedure for such impeachment of

the President. It may be noted that 'impeachment' is provided only for the President and

further, the ground for impeachment is only 'violation of the Constitution', not incapacity,

misconduct or the like. The fixed tenure for a elected President and the provision for removal

of the President on the ground of violation of the Constitution indicates that an individual

cannot hold the office of the President for perpetuity. Supreme Court in Bhanumati vrs State

of UP38 observed, "In democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue provided

they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of

democratic republicanism".

37 Prof K T Shah mooted the proposed amendment. 38 Bhanumati vrs State of UP, AIR 2010 SC 3796 ; (2010) 12 SCC 1

Article 58 lays down the eligibility to contest for the office of President. Article 58(1)

needs to be read with Article 71 (3). Article 71 (3) empowers the Parliament to legislate law

relating to Presidential election. Under the provision of Article 71 (3), Parliament has enacted

a law called 'the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952'. There have been

fourteen Presidential Elections so far. Last one was on 2012. The only person to be elected

without a contest was Dr. Sanjiva Reddy in 1977. One of the most noteworthy things during

Presidential Elections in India is the number of nominations filed by persons of various

backgrounds. In the last 2012 Presidential Election, there were as many as 26 persons filed

nomination paper for the office of President and among those there were tea vendor and auto

rickshaw driver also39. Although most of these were non-serious candidates40 and their

nominations on scrutiny were found to be invalid, this did make the point very loudly that in

our democracy any citizen without any distinction could aspire to occupy the highest office

of the State. In other words, all the public offices, including the highest one, are open for all

the eligible citizen as per the prescription of the law. It would not be out of place to note that

Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights

provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to

employment or appointment to any office under the State. Supreme Court of India41 has

clarified that the main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of

opportunity and employment in public offices.

III. UNIVERSAL ADULT SUFFRAGE : The Preamble of Indian Constitution

proclaims that it is a Democratic Republic. The entire scheme of Indian Constitution is

designed to ensure its sovereignty and integrity as a Republic through democratic process.

Our constitution envisages the establishment of a democratic republican form of government

based on adult suffrage42 and it is part of its basic features43. Universal suffrage is one of the

main features of Indian democratic political system. Universal adult suffrage is adopted by

having one electoral constituency containing the entire adult population44, none being

39 http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/auto-rickshaw-driver-tea-vendor-among-26-who-file-nominations-for-presidential-poll-490176 ( last accessed on 18/05/2014) 40 In order to curb the number of non-serious candidates, necessary changes have been inserted in the President and Vice-President Election Act and Rule by increasing the required number of proposers and seconders from 10 each to 50 each and the amount of security deposit from Rs.2500/- to Rs 15,000/-. 41 Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others [2006 (2) SCALE 115] 42 Indira Gandhi Case (AIR 1975 SC 2299) 43 PUCL vrs Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363 44 Article 326 contains the provision for Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage

excluded on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or any of them45. This (one man one vote)

embodies the right of the entire population to ‘equal participation in the polity’46. India with

appalling backwardness dominated with caste structure, dismal poverty and rampant illiteracy

at the time of Independence and framing of the Constitution, accepting universal adult

suffrage was an act of faith for the founding fathers on the ethos of republicanism. To grant

adult suffrage to all men and women in one go was truly path breaking. In fact, initially

universal adult suffrage was proposed to be placed with the other fundamental rights. Dr B R

Ambedkar in the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee clearly and emphatically of the

opinion that adult franchise and all provisions for its free and fair exercise should be

recognised as in the nature of fundamental rights. Minorities Sub-Committee too endorsed

the proposal of Dr B R Ambedkar. However, others like C Rajagopalachari was of the

different view. Finally the Advisory Committee recommended that instead of being included

under fundamental rights, it should be placed elsewhere. Constituent Assembly approved the

corresponding draft article as moved by Dr B R Ambedkar. Article 326 says that election to

the House of the People and to State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of

universal adult suffrage and every man and woman who is 18 years47 or more shall be entitled

to be registered as a voter. Though right to elect and to be elected is not a fundamental right,

considering the social structure of India, this statutory rights has a huge significance in all

spheres of life. Right to exercise universal adult franchise is subject to the limitations

imposed by the statute which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the statute.

The challenge to any provision in the statute prescribing the nature of the right to elect cannot

be made with reference to a fundamental right in the Constitution48. Article 326 can be said

as one of the most important, salutary and seminal provision of the Constitution for putting a

stamp of assertion on establishing India as Sovereign Democratic Republic.

IV. GOVERNANCE OF PEOPLE AT GRASSROOT LEVEL - PANCHAYATI

RAJ: India has a long history and tradition of democratic institution at the grass root level.

The Panchayats in the village have always played a pivotal part in day to day governance of

the rural community. Gandhiji was for a Constitution for independent India with the village

and Panchayats at the centre of polity. However, the same was not supported by Dr B R

Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee. In fact, in the draft Constitution prepared

45 As per provision of Article 325, no person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be included in a special, electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. 46 R C Poudyal vrs Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804 47 The Constitution (61st Amendment ) Act, 1988 lower the voting age to 18 years from the earlier 21 years. 48 Anukul chandra Pradhan vrs Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2814

by the drafting Committee has no provision in regard to Panchyati Raj institutions. This was

strongly criticised. A provision in regard to the Panchayats was for the first time introduced

in the Constituent Assembly by way of an amendment moved by K Santhanam. When put to

vote the amendment was adopted by the Constituent Assembly49. It was incorporated in the

DPSP chapter. Article 40 says, "The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and

endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function

as units of self-government". The objects of article 40 is decentralisation and devolution of

public power to the people. If that does not happen, power of the people will stand

subverted50. Now with the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 40 is to be

read with the new parts IX and IXA of the Constitution. These new parts inserted with 73rd

and 74th Amendment have made some fundamental changes in the political structure and in

the status of local institutions ( Panchayat / Municipality) and thereof strengthen the

republican ethos in India. These local institutions now have the constitutional protection and

enable them to function as institutions of self-government. Things to be noted here that now

such local institutions have to be elected directly by the people in the same manner as

members of Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies, i.e. adult universal suffrage. For

village panchayat, the electorate would be the Gram Sabha which would consist of those

registered in the electoral rolls. These Panchayts couldn't remain superseded for long; fresh

elections would have to be held within six months of the dissolution of a Panchayat. Further,

in all panchayats, seats are reserved for women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The tenure of a Panchayat is fixed for five years. The Panchayats have their own budget,

power of taxation and list of items in their jurisdiction51. In their respective areas, the

Panchayats shall be able to formulate their own development plans and implement them. This

constitutional legal framework has undoubtedly bring public power to the people where it

belongs in a Democratic Republican set up.

V. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM : NON-ARBITRARINESS &

NON-DOMINANCE: Constitutional framework of India also advocates the Republican

conception of liberty as non-domination. A hosts of natural rights are guaranteed under the

Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution. Article 1452, 1953 and 2154 forms the golden

49 CAD Vol VII 50 N M Kheni vrs Manik Rao Patil, AIR 1977 SC 2171 51 Article 243G and Article 243 H read with Eleventh Schedule has given power to the Panchayat to make their own financial plan including levying tax on certain matters. 52 Article 14 guarantees right to equality: " The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

triangle of Indian Constitution55. Articles 14, 19 and 21 represent the fundamental values

which forms the basis of rule of law56 in India. In subsequent chapters, a detailed discussion

will be made on Article 14, 19 and 21. But, a brief statements on the said constitutional

provision is imperative to unfold the Republican structure of India. It could be said that the

trio assists the deprived and destroys the exploiters of the depressed class. It is impossible to

conceive of a democratic republican form of government without equality of citizen57.

Equality is the bedrock of the Indian Constitution (Verma, 2013)58. Equality is a multi-

coloured concept incapable of a single definition. But, the types of equality which our

democratic republic guarantees are all subsumed under specific articles of the Constitution

like Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, etc.59 . Undoubtedly, Article 14 is the genus of principle of

equality in Indian Constitution. The concept of equality which is basic to rule of law and that

which is regarded as the most fundamental postulate of republicanism are both embodies in

Art 14. In Anwar Ali Case60, Justice Mahajan explaining the scope of Article 14 of the

Constitution observed that Article 14 is designed to prevent any person or class of persons

for being singled out as a special subject for discriminatory and hostile legislation. Equality

of right is a fundamental principle of republicanism and article 14 enunciates this equality

principle in the administration of justice61. Art 14 enunciates a vital principles which lies at

the core of our republicanism and shines like a beacon light pointing towards the goal of

classless egalitarian socio-economic order which we promised to build for ourselves when we

made a tryst with destiny on that fateful day when we adopted out Constitution62.It is well

settled under the Indian constitutional law that principle of equality as envisaged under

Article 14 is anti-thesis to arbitrariness63 Indeed, Article 14 contains the basic principles of

‘Republicanism’. Further, basic freedoms inherent in the status of a free citizen are

guaranteed in Article 19. The rights enumerated in Article 19(1) are protected from invasion

53 Article 19 guarantees right to fundamental freedom: (1) All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression;(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; [and] (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business 54 Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 55 Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vrs Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 56 I R Coelho vrs State of Tamilnadu AIR 2007 SC 861 57 Indira Gandhi Case, AIR 1975 SC 2299 58 Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law ( better known as Justice Verma Committee Report) (2013) p.24 59 Indira Gandhi Case (AIR 1975 SC 2299) 60 State of West Bengal vrs Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC 75 61 State of West Bengal vrs Anwar Ali AIR 1952 SC 75 – J Mahajan 62 Maganlal Chhaganlal (p) Ltd vrs Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay & ors, AIR 1974 SC 2009 63 E P Royappa vrs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555,(1974)4 SCC3

by the State. But, at the same time, State does conferred with the power to regulate these

freedoms in public interests which is defined in relation to each of the freedoms by clause 2

to 6 of Article 1964. This is based on the principle that liberty has to be limited in order to be

effectively possessed. Article 19 while guarantees some of the most valued elements of

liberty to every citizen, as Fundamental Rights, provides for their regulation for the common

good by the State imposing certain restrictions on their exercise65. The State can impose

'reasonable restriction' on certain specified grounds on the freedom of the citizen as

guaranteed under Article 19. The phrase 'reasonable restriction' connotes that the limitation

imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature,

beyond what is required in the interest in the interests of the public. Law which arbitrarily or

excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness. The

reasonableness of restrictions to be determined in an objective manner and from the stand

point of the interests for general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of the

persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract consideration66. Justice G

N Ray, narrating the general principles and guidelines for consideration of a statutory

provision upon a challenge on the alleged vice of unreasonableness of restriction, observed

that " Restriction imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the

Constitution must not be arbitrary, unbridled, uncanalised and excessive and also not

unreasonably discriminatory. Ex hypothesis, therefore, a restriction to be reasonable must also

be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution"67. The principles to be borne in mind in

applying Art. 14 and 19 is that a fundamental right can be controlled by the State only by

making a law imposing, in the interest of the general public , reasonable restrictions on the

exercise of the said right. Such restrictions on the exercise of a fundamental right shall not be

arbitrary, or excessive, or beyond what a required in the interest of the general public. The

reasonableness of a restriction shall be tested both from substantive and procedural aspects. If

an uncontrolled or unguided power is conferred, without any reasonable and proper standards

or limits being laid down in the enactment, the stature may be challenged as discriminatory68.

64 State of West Bengal vrs Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92 65 M R F Ltd vrs Inspector Kerala Govt. , AIR 1999 SC 188 66 Krrishnan Kakkanth vrs Govt of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 416 67 Papnasam Labour Union vrs Madura Coats Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 2200 68 Maneklal chhotalal & ors vrs M G Makwana & ors, AIR 1967 SC 1373

As per the said observation the test of reasonableness for the curtailment of fundamental

freedoms as envisaged under Article 19 must fulfil the rigour of Article 14 (Basu, 2006)69.

Article 21 casts a duty on the State as 'not to deprive person of his life and personal

liberty except according to procedure established by law'. The ambit of Article was widened

by purposive interpretation of the phrase that the 'procedure established by law' had to be just,

fair and reasonable. That means such law and procedure must qualify the test of non-

arbitrariness and resonableness. Justice Bhagwati in the a Gandhi Case70 observed that

fundamental rights impose negative obligation on the State not to encroach on individual

liberty in its various dimensions.

One of the essential dimension of individual liberty and quality of life is that

of respecting the dignity of individual. Preamble of the Constitution assures the dignity of

the individual. The values of freedom and equality befitting the dignity of individual are

elaborated in Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Though, right to dignity was not

expressly mentioned in the Constitution, it is also well settled under Indian Constitutional law

that 'right to life' as envisaged under Article 21 includes 'right to life with dignity'71. SC in the

case of Francis Coralie Mullin held that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be

restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical

survival. Every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed is thus protected by Article 21

and it includes the faculties of thinking and feeling. The right to life includes the right to live

with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such

as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing

oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow

human beings. The connotations of ‘life’ do not confine itself to a clinical life or a beastly life

or only life as opposed to death; otherwise life may be depraved, degenerated and lost. The

expanded horizon of Art 21 embarrasses medley of concepts, including any aspects of life

which makes life dignified, a life worth living. On the contrary, every act which offends

against or impairs human dignity constitutes deprivation of this right to life72.

69 As per D D Basu, the scope of inquiry as to the reasonableness under Article 14 is not the same as that under article 19. According to him, the test of reasonableness arising under Article 14 cannot be extended to cases arising under Article 19 or 21. - D D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 13th edition 2006, Wadhwa Nagpur, p. 187 70 Maneka Gandhi vrs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 71 Francis Coralie Mullin vrs U.T. of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 72 Chairman, Railway Board vrs Chandrima Das AIR 2000 SC 988

Democracy is not synonymous with ‘majoritarianism’. A mere majoritarian

democracy will soon degenerate into elective despotism. Pluralism is the soul of democracy.

“A true democracy is surely one in which the existence of the power of the many is

conditional on respect for the rights of the few. There is no place for a crude statistical view

of the democracy.” Democratic polity has to be an inclusive democracy. There are an array

of provisions under Indian Constitution which protect the interests of the minority and

disadvantaged sections of Indian society. Following few are such provisions:

A. Article 15(3): Special provisions for women and Children

B. Article 15(4): special provision for the advancement of any socially and

educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes

C. Article 16 (4): Provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in public

services in favour of any backward class of citizens

D. Article 29 & 30: Protection of the rights of the minorities

These are few provisions which allow State to render necessary support to the such

disadvantaged sections and minority sections of the society. Either State or majority is not

permitted under the Constitution to play a dominating role.

VI. DPSP : SETTING THE PLATFORM FOR DEVELOPING COHESIVE

COMMUNITY LIVING - Directive Principles of State Policy ( herein after referred as

DPSP), contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Constitution, speaks about the Indian vision

and philosophy of democratic socialism with Gandhian idealism. It reflects the deliberate

path and wisdom of the nation on which the nation needs to be governed. It constitutes a very

comprehensive political, social and economic programme for future India. Though the

provisions of DPSP are not enforceable, yet they are fundamental in the governance of the

country73. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B R Ambedkar had categorically said

that the Directive Principles were in the nature of an instrument of instructions and whoever

capture power 'will have to respect it'. The Directive Principles inter alia envisage and end

to economic exploitation and staggering inequalities and cast upon the State the duty to

secure a just social order. The Directive Principles embody a commitment to the concept of a

Welfare State which was imposed by the Constitution makers on the State to bring about

73 Article 37 says "The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws."

economic and social regeneration of the teeming millions who are stepped in poverty,

ignorance and social backwardness. They incorporate a pledge to the coming generations of

what the State strive to usher in74. Following are the few directives which are ideals for India

to set up for a healthy community living ___

A. Article 38 (1) directs the State to strive for promotion of the welfare of the

people by securing a social order permeated by social, economic and political justice.

B. Article 38 (2) instructs State to minimise inequality in income, status, facilities

and opportunities amongst individuals and groups.

C. Article 39 instructs the State to directs its policy towards securing equitable

distribution of material resources of the community and preventing concentration of

wealth in fewer hands. One of the understandings of republicanism is that the public

good must prevail over the private pursuit of wealth. This facet of republicanism is

contrasted with liberalism. The argument is that whereas liberalism stresses private

interest and emphasises the importance of the market and the pursuit of private profit,

Republicanism stresses devotion to the community and the common good. Whereas

liberalism may be tempted to define freedom in negative an individualistic terms,

republicans see freedom as positive and social character (Hoffman, 2007)75.

D. Article 43 directs the State to endeavour for securing just and humane

conditions of work, a living wage, a decent standard of living and social and cultural

opportunities for all workers.

E. Article 47 directs the State to raise level of nutrition and standard of living and

improving public health.

There are few articles in Chapter IV which make the policy statement of India to strengthen

community living . Such as ___

A. Article 39A: State to secure operation of the legal system to promote justice

on the basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid

74 Keshavananda Bharati vrs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 75 John Hoffman, A Glossary of Political Theory, Edingurgh University Press (2007),P159 -160

B. Article 40: Organising village Panchayats as units of self-government.

Insertion of 73rd and 74th Amendment is a step towards realising the said

objective.

C. Article 43: Developing cottage industries

D. Article 44: Securing uniform civil code throughout the country

E. Article 45: Providing free and compulsory primary education

F. Article 46: Protecting weaker and smaller sections from social injustice

and protecting their socio-economic interests

G. Article 47: Prohibiting consumption of liquor and intoxicating goods

except of medicinal purposes

H. Article 48: Organising and modernising agriculture and animal husbandry

I. Article 48A: Protecting and improving environment and safeguarding forests

and wildlife

J. Article 49: Protecting and maintaining places of historical interest

In certain quarters, legalistically significance of DPSPs are questioned on the ground

that it would not have made any difference to the shape and nature of the Constitution if they

had been omitted. It is so as it can be ignored with impunity. Nonetheless, the latest judicial

trend is that the Supreme Court of India has started the practice of reading many directives

into some of the guaranteed fundamental rights, and thus, the directives have been

metamorphosed into a vast reservoir of constitutionally sanctioned values.

INDIAN REPUBLIC : SYNTHESIS OF NEO-ATHENIAN & NEO-ROMAN MODEL

OF REPUBLIC: Considering the profound cultural and regional diversity and pluralism as

prevalent in Indian, the word ‘republic’ is core to understand the constitutional values which

are entrenched within the Constitution of India (Verma, 2013)76. The Constitution of India

renders equal importance to individual as well as community. And, this is very much evident

from the constitutional framework as discussed above. From the laid down structure, both the

traits of neo-Athenian and neo-Roman model of Republic are available. The neo-Athenian

model, which emphasises on community driven welfare of the people, is very much

noticeable in the DPSP chapter of the Constitution. At the same time, the Fundamental Rights

76 Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law ( better known as Justice Verma Committee Report) (2013) p.24

Chapter of the Constitution accentuates the prominence of individual quality of life and

liberty. This stands in tune with the neo-Romanian model of Republican governance. Political

theorists77 do acknowledge possible synthesis between both the models. Indian Republican

structure would be a perfect example of it.

CONSCLUSION

Indian constitution is not only a legal document, but it is also considered to be a social

document. This social character is defined both by Chapter III ( Fundamental Rights Chapter)

and Chapter IV ( Directive Principles of State Policy). The Indian Supreme Court as well as

the political elite of the country took more than three decades to realise compatibility of

Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles78. The earliest decisions of the Supreme Court

had paid little importance to the DPSP on the ground that such provisions are not enforceable

in the Court of law like Fundamental Rights. However, the said trend was altered with the

proposition laid down by the judiciary79 with reference to relationship between Fundamental

Rights and Directive Principles, Justice Jeevan Reddy, in the Unnikrishnan Case80, has

beautifully explained the interrelationship between the two with the following words:

"The provisions of Parts III and IV are supplementary and complementary to each other and

not exclusionary of each other and that the fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the

goal indicated in Part IV."

Indeed, there is no disharmony between the Directives and the Fundamental Rights, because

they supplement each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution

and the establishment of a welfare State. Together they form core of the Constitution81. The

fundamental rights and the directive principles are the two wheels of the chariot as an aid to

make social and economic democracy a truism. The Constitution of India synthesises the

demands of both the Fundamental Rights (FRs) and the Directive Principles (DPSP) and it

constitutes conscience of the Republic of India and its Constitution. 'Liberty of individual'

77 John W Maynor, 'Republicanism in the Modern World', 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p 15; Skinner, Q. (1978), Foundation of Modern Political Thought, 2 Vol ( Cambridge University Press); Pocock, J G A (1975), The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political and the Atlantic Republican Tradition ( Princenton University Press) 78 Jayna Kothari, "Social Rights And The Constitution", (2004) 6 SCC (Jour) 32 79Keshavananda Bharati vrs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; State of Kerala vrs N M Thomas, AIR 1976SC490; Minerva Mills vrs Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 ; Jilubhai Nanbahi Khachar vrs State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142 80 J P Unnikrishnan vrs State of AP, AIR 1993 SC 2178 81 V Markandeya vrs State of A P, AIR 1989 SC 1308

and ' values of community living' are the two ends of a strand and both the ends of that strand

of Indian Republic are well defined. Now, the onus is on the key stakeholders, people and

functionaries of the Government, to understand and implement the same in discharging their

public duties. An understanding on this will be a first step for restoration of trust between the

ruler and governed.

REFERENCES

Abrams, K. (1988). Law's Republicanism - Symposium: The Republican Civic Traditon. The Yale Law

Journal , 97 (08), 1591-1608 (p.1592).

Basu, D. D. (2006). Shorter Constitution of India (13th Edition ed.). Nagpur: Wadhwa.

Duttm, R. C. (1906). History of India (Vol. I). The Grolier Society.

Everdell, W. R. (1891). The History of Aryan Rule in India from earliest time to death of Akbar. George

G Harrap & Co Ltd.

Havell, E. B. (1891). The History of Aryan Rule in India from Earliest time to Death of Akbar. George H

Harrap & Co Ltd.

Hoffman, J. (2007). A Glossary of Political Theory. Edingurgh University Press.

Jain, M. P. (2007). Indian Constitutional Law (5th ed., Vol. I).

Kashyap, S. C. (2004). The Framing of India's Constitution- A Study (2ND EDITION ed., Vol. IV). (B. S.

Rao, Ed.) New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd.

Khanna, H. R. (2013). Making of India's Constitution (2nd Edition ed.). Lucknow: Eastern Book

Company.

Lahoti, R. C. (2004). Preamble : The Spirit and Backbone of the Constitution of India. Lucknow:

Eastern Book Company.

Maynor, J. W. (2003). Republicanism in the Modern World. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Menon, V. P. (1955). The Story of the Integration of the Indian States. Longmans Green & Co.

Menon, V. P. (1957). The Transfer of Power in India. Princeton University Press.

Pettit, P. (2002). Republicanism : A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press.

Rao, B. S. (2004). The Framing of India's Constitution - Selected Documents (Vol. II). (B. S. Rao, Ed.)

New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd.

Seervai, H. M. (2008). Constitutional Law of India. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.

Shamshastri, R. (1930). Forms of Government in ancient India. Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute , XII (1), 1-24.

Stein, B. (2010). A History of India (2nd Edition ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Verma, J. J. (2013). Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law.