EMANCIPATORY CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE: REIMAGINING DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONALISM
INTRODUCTION
On the centenary of the country, Viksit Bharat is an endeavor initiated by Niti Ayog focusing on development and transforming India in the fields of social, economic, and technology.[1] However, the true essence is measured by protecting and strengthening democracy and constitutional provisions. Constitutional governance and the democratic rule of Law are the cornerstones of India’s democratic republic that ensures each organ of the State functions within the frameworks of constitution while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the people. Referring to speeches of the Constituent Assembly, it stated that the meaning of democracy is a rule of law as opposed to the rule of force. The concept of Rule of Law equated democracy with a government of the people, by the people and for the people.[2]
The preamble of the Constitution epitomizes the aspirations of the people, inter alia, provides for securing social, economic and political justice by promising justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. The Preambular promise is evident in Part III of the Constitution granting Fundamental rights.[3] However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned about the ineffectiveness of the Constitution no matter how efficient it is if it is not upholding morality. Hence, the 2047 long vision of India focus on upholding democratic values by strengthening constitutional values and upholding the democratic rule of law, ensuring accountability and fairness by preserving Fundamental rights.
CONSTITUTIONAL VISION OF INDIA
The Preamble, Fundamental Rights (articles 14 to 21), Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38 and 39), and Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) together from the constitution of inclusive accountable governance. The Constitution starts with We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.[4]
Post 75 years of Independence, our country has started its journey into Amritkal with the goal of becoming ‘Vikasit Bharat’ by the year 2047. The realization of this aim will also require contribution of all sects of the state in the spirit of ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas.’[5] The confrontation came to a head when a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala it was held that Parliament does have the power to amend fundamental rights but not infringe on the ‘basic structure of the Constitution.’[6] The judgment in Kesavananda is seen as a means of empowering the judiciary, allowing it to play a larger role in governance than originally intended. Critics argue that this has led to an imbalance, where the judiciary can dictate governance, which some believe is not its intended role.[7] The Kesavananda Bharati case is pivotal in shaping the discourse around constitutional amendments and the role of the judiciary in India, emphasizing the need for a balance between judicial oversight and parliamentary sovereignty.[8]
Similarly, Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reaffirmed the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, emphasizing that neither individual liberty nor social justice can be sacrificed at the expense of the other. These judgments demonstrate that constitutional governance is not static but a living commitment to democratic values.[9]
The Indian Constitution establishes a framework for democracy, but the effectiveness of this democracy relies on the functioning of various institutions and the addressing of socio-economic inequalities.[10]
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATIC RULE OF LAW
Constitutional governance requires every public authority to derive its power from the constitution and exercise them within the constitutional limitations. The Constitution is described as quasi-federal, meaning that legislative powers are divided between the States and the Union. Each branch of government operates within its own sphere, but the exercise of these powers is subject to judicial review.[11] The dynamic role of separation of powers is crucial for addressing contemporary governance challenges. This evolving perspective helps to connect historical principles with modern administrative practices.[12] Articles 52 to 78 govern the executive of Articles 79 to 122 regulate Parliament, while Articles 124 to 127 establish an independent judiciary. Institutions such as the Election Commission (Article 324) and the Comptroller and auditor general Articles (148 to 151) for the strengthen constitutional accountability.
The S.R. Bommai case (1994) is significant in the context of Indian federalism and the role of President’s rule. It arose when the Janta Dal government, led by S.R. Bommai in Karnataka, faced a constitutional crisis due to a dissident faction breaking away. Despite Bommai’s readiness to prove his majority in the Legislative Assembly, the Governor dismissed his ministry and imposed President’s rule on April 21, 1989, along with the dissolution of the Assembly. Bommai challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against the imposition of President’s rule in Karnataka, as well as in Nagaland and Meghalaya, declaring it unconstitutional by a narrow majority of 5:4.[13]
The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized that the imposition of President’s rule should not be arbitrary and must adhere to constitutional principles. It established that judicial review could be applied to such proclamations, particularly if they were based on insufficient material or lacked a reasonable connection to the President’s satisfaction. This landmark ruling reinforced the principles of federal democracy in India and aimed to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of elected state governments for political reasons.
The case is viewed as a critical moment in strengthening national unity and ensuring that the federal structure of governance is respected in India. The judgment has been interpreted as a barrier against the misuse of power by the Union government in dismissing state governments.[14]
The democratic rule of law demands equality before law, fairness, transparency, and judicial independence. The Supreme Court, in the Maneka Gandhi case, transformed article 21 by upholding that any procedure affecting life or personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.[15] It overruled the earlier decision in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The court introduced a new interpretation of Article 21, stating that the procedure for depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just. If it is not, the law would be considered void for violating Article 21.[16] a
Further, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) reform judicial review as an essential feature of the constitution.[17] L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is referenced in the document as a significant case related to the Indian Constitution. It is mentioned in the context of the Supreme Court’s role and its power as the ultimate interpreter and guardian of the Constitution. The case is cited among others to illustrate the judiciary’s function in representing the voice of the people and ensuring the protection of constitutional rights.[18] Similarly, the case of Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997) is significant in the context of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It stranded institutional accountability by insulating investigative agencies from executive interference.[19] It was a Public Interest Litigation related to the Jain Haw case, which involved several high-profile individuals, including cabinet ministers and bureaucrats, being charged with corruption. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case led to the establishment of a nonpartisan selection committee, headed by the Central Vigilance Commission, for the appointment of the CBI director in 1998. This was aimed at ensuring that the agency remains nonpartisan and free from political influence. Additionally, the Lokpal Act of 2013 further amended the DSPE Act to create a bipartisan committee for the appointment of the CBI director, reinforcing the intent to maintain political neutrality in the agency’s leadership.[20]
‘A democratic backsliding is said to be occurring and India is being variously described as ‘partially free democracy’, a ‘flawed democracy’ or even an ‘electoral autocracy.’ The downgrading was based variously on the current regime promotinganti-minority feeling and legislation, the violation of human rights with ‘the diminishing of freedom of expression, the media and civil society hav(ing) gone the furthest.’[21]
There is a significant gap in the enforcement of laws, leading to blatant violations. This undermines the foundation of democracy and necessitates a systematic approach to establish a law-abiding society. Legal education should focus on fostering respect for the law among citizens, ensuring that laws are enforced fairly and equally.[22] The India Justice Report highlights disparities in judicial infrastructure and access to justice across states. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has also emphasized the need for greater transparency, accountability, and citizen-centric governance. There are challenges for those who seek to represent marginalized communities, including the risk of being ostracized by the legal community for defending certain clients.[23]
The case, known as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, led to a significant shift in the understanding of the right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.[24] The Supreme Court overruled previous decisions that stated the right to privacy was not protected by the Constitution, affirming that it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.[25]
The concept of “manifest arbitrariness” is discussed in the context of the Supreme Court’s ruling on triple talaq. The judges argued that legislation can be struck down if it is deemed arbitrary and thus violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law.[26] In this case, the judges applied the “test of manifest arbitrariness” to triple talaq, concluding that it allowed a Muslim man to end a marriage capriciously and without any attempt at reconciliation. This lack of reasonable cause and the absence of reconciliation efforts led the judges to determine that triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and violates the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.[27]
With the increase in digital governance and artificial intelligence, protection of privacy ensures algorithmic transparency and avoids surveillance excess will eventually become a crucial component of the concept of rule of law.
ROADMAP TOWARDS VISION INDIA @2047
The Government of India’s Viksit Bharat @2047 initiative represents a visionary roadmap aimed at transforming India into a developed nation by the centenary of its independence. This paper offers a theoretical analysis of the initiative, outlining its core objectives, pillars, strategic frameworks, and anticipated challenges. By synthesizing developmental theories with national planning frameworks, the study assesses the feasibility of this transformation and proposes a multidimensional pathway for inclusive, sustainable, and high-growth development.
Globalization brought the transfer of ideas across seas and from blindly following single system, a political and ideological spectrum developed, which resulted in people questioning previous systems and demanded equality of opportunity in capitalist and equality of the outcome in socialist setup.[28]
There is a general lack of emphasis on reforming the judicial system as a means to improve democracy.[29] Judicial reforms are essential to address the significant backlog and inefficiencies in the Indian judicial system. There are several core issues identified that need immediate attention for effective reform for judicial vacancies which is a major problem is the high number of judicial vacancies, which contributes to case backlogs and unreasonable caseloads. As of January 18, 2016, the approved judicial strength across high courts was 1,044, but many positions remain unfilled, exacerbating delays in justice delivery.[30]
The importance of internal laws and procedures within agencies to protect individuals from regulatory abuses, suggesting that agencies should adopt best practices to enhance transparency and accountability.[31] The National Judicial Data Grid demonstrates how digital tools can enhance judicial efficiency.
The reforms should not only focus on the voting process but also foster a culture of active citizenry and inclusivity that extends beyond election day. This includes creating opportunities for communities to engage in governance continuously.[32] Electoral reforms should promote transparency in political funding, strengthen independent institutions, and encourage greater citizen participation in democratic processes.
India needs to establish global universities of excellence that can provide world-class education and promote cutting-edge research. This is essential for fostering leadership among youth and addressing governance challenges.[33] The regulatory framework for higher education reflects a state-led development ideology, where the state not only financed institutions but also imposed regulatory mechanisms to ensure their functioning.[34]
The Indian government has also taken steps to support the IT sector’s development, such as easing regulations to allow software developers to contribute more freely to technological advancements. Overall, India’s IT sector not only drives economic growth but also builds cultural ties and enhances its international standing through strategic use of technology.[35] Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence should be governed by constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, equality, and privacy. Governance in the digital era must remain people-centric rather than technology-centric.
Ultimately, constitutional governance requires cooperation among institutional approaches and active public participation.
CONCLUSION
India’s constitutional journey towards 2047 is not merely about achieving technological and economic milestones but about fulfilling the promises contained in the Constitution. AI technologies are entangled with a crisis in democracy, where the application of technology to politics can bring risks but also improve representative politics, citizen participation, and effective governance.[36] The vibrant democratic process in India, characterized by continuous elections, vigorous parliamentary debates, an active civil society, and a vigilant media, has contributed to keeping the government accountable. This accountability is essential for fostering an environment conducive to economic growth.[37]
Democracy should not be limited to voting and majoritarian procedures. Thinkers like Ronald Dworkin advocate for a broader understanding of democracy that includes substantive protections for human rights. This perspective emphasizes that democracy is more than just a system of majority rule.[38] The landmark judgments of the Supreme Court have consistently reaffirmed that democracy, federalism, judicial review, and constitutional morality are integral to India’s constitutional identification. Moreover, democracy seems to have more intrinsic virtues. It is a particularly fitting response to persistent disagreement. It treats people fairly. It does not insult them. It realizes a form of autonomy. It provides avenues for civic engagement.[39] Ambedkar’s vision for the Constitution was more radical than what was ultimately adopted in 1950. He aimed to incorporate transformative elements. His emphasis on affirmative action measures and the inclusion of Directive Principles of State Policy were significant aspects of his approach to ensure social justice and equality.[40]
The vision of India @2047 must therefore be one where governance is constitutional, democracy is participatory, and the rule of law remains the foundation of the Republic.
[1] Avaneesh Maurya and Rajiv Kumar Giri, Reimagining India: Policies and Perspectives of Viksit Bharat (Shashwat Publication 2025).
[2] Gourab Banerji, ‘Democracy in the Indian Constitution’ (2021) 48(3–4) India International Centre Quarterly 197.
[3] Aparajita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India: An Insight and Comparison with Other Constitutions (Deep & Deep 2007).
[4] VN Shukla, Constitution of India (Mahendra Pal Singh ed, 14th edn, EBC 2022).
[5] The Constitution of India (52nd edn, EBC 2026).
[6] Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[7] Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[8] A K Jayasankaran Nambiar, ‘Re-Imagining Constitutional Interpretation in India’ (2022) 64(2) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 157.
[9] Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625.
[10] Gourab Banerji, ‘Democracy in the Indian Constitution’ (2021) 48(3–4) India International Centre Quarterly 197
[11] P Parameshwar Rao, ‘Separation of Powers in a Democracy: The Indian Experience’ (2005) 37(1) Peace Research 113.
[12] Jon D Michaels, ‘An Enduring, Evolving Separation of Powers’ (2015) 115(3) Columbia Law Review 515.
[13] S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
[14] Ramu Bagri, ‘Development of Indian Federalism & Role of President’s Rule in the Light of the S R Bommai Case (1994)’ (2012) 73(3) The Indian Journal of Political Science 443.
[15] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[16] Fali S Nariman, ‘Fifty Years of Human Rights Protection in India – The Record of 50 Years of Constitutional Practice’ (2013) National Law School of India Review 13.
[17] L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261.
[18] Madan B Lokur, ‘Republic in the Indian Constitution’ (2021) 48(3–4) India International Centre Quarterly 260.
[19] Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226.
[20] Ajay K Mehra, ‘Investigative Agencies’ in Šumit Ganguly, Dinsha Mistree and Larry Diamond (eds), The Troubling State of India’s Democracy (University of Michigan Press 2024) 210.
[21] Aditya Mukherjee, ‘Democracy in India’ (2021) 48(2) India International Centre Quarterly 21.
[22] C Raj Kumar, ‘Legal Education, Globalization, and Institutional Excellence: Challenges for the Rule of Law and Access to Justice in India’ (2013) 20(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 221.
[23] S Muralidhar, ‘Appearing in Court in India: Challenges in Representing the Marginalised’ (2022) 3(2) CASTE: A Global Journal on Social Exclusion 421.
[24] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[25] Virendra Kumar, ‘Dynamics of the “Right to Privacy”: Its Characterization under the Indian Constitution’ (2019) 61(1) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 68.
[26] Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
[27] Tanja Herklotz, ‘Shayara Bano versus Union of India and Others: The Indian Supreme Court’s Ban of Triple Talaq and the Debate around Muslim Personal Law and Gender Justice’ (2017) 50(3) Verfassung und Recht in Übersee / Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America 300.
[28] Y Papa Rao and Dhairya Jain, ‘Progressing Toward Inclusivity: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Legacy in Upholding Social Justice on India’s Development Path by 2047’ (2024) 4(4) Amoghvarta 9.
[29] Laura Silver, Moira Fagan, Christine Huang and Laura Clancy, ‘Rule of Law, Safety and the Judicial System’ in What Can Improve Democracy? (Pew Research Center 2024).
[30] Abhishek Singhvi, ‘Reforms in the Administration of Justice: Beating the Backlog’ (2016) 58(1) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 115.
[31] Christopher J Walker, ‘Constraining Bureaucracy Beyond Judicial Review’ (2021) 150(3) Daedalus 155.
[32] Tessa Dooms, Reclaiming People’s Power Through Electoral Reforms (South African Institute of International Affairs 2024).
[33] C Raj Kumar, ‘Legal Education, Globalization, and Institutional Excellence: Challenges for the Rule of Law and Access to Justice in India’ (2013) 20(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 221.
[34] Simantini Krishnan, ‘Political Economy of India’s Tertiary Education: Persistence and Change’ (2014) 49(11) Economic and Political Weekly 63.
[35] Kriti, ‘Information Technology as a Tool of India’s Soft Power’ (2024) 28(3) World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues 136.
[36] Rachel George and Ian Klaus, AI and Democracy: Mapping the Intersections (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2026).
[37] Subrata K Mitra, ‘Democracy’s Resilience: Tradition, Modernity, and Hybridity in India’ (2011) 32(4) Harvard International Review 46.
[38] Dilip Ukey, ‘Rule of Law, Democracy and Frontiers of Judicial Activism: Constitutional and Judicial Paradigms’ (2021) 63(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 370.
[39] Niko Kolodny, ‘Rule Over None I: What Justifies Democracy?’ (2014) 42(3) Philosophy & Public Affairs 195.
[40] Sukhadeo Thorat, ‘Ambedkar’s Emancipatory Constitutionalism’ (2024) 5(1) CASTE: A Global Journal on Social Exclusion 27.