Ill-advised KCR swing at the Constitution
Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao has triggered a political storm by mooting a new Constitution for India as the existing one, over 70 years old, is no longer relevant for its present-day requirements. While slam-dunking the PM in language that did not behove his position, KCR accused the Centre of trying to usurp the powers of the state. He spoke against the Centre’s sway over the subjects in the concurrent list that, he says, essentially should be in the domain of the states besides those in the state list.
KCR is not so naive to be unaware that the Supreme Court had settled the issue as early as in 1973. A 13-judge Bench, while pronouncing its judgment by majority in the Kesavananda Bharati case, had said that the Constitution could not be amended to alter its basic structure and framework under Article 368. In this case, it had defined the basic structure doctrine, which included a democratic form of the government and secular character.
Future cases added the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary, and the federal character to the doctrine. As the permanency of the present Constitution is now a fait accompli, KCR could use various platforms already available if he feels that the states are getting a raw deal. For instance, the Inter-State Council is a forum for seeking justice and, if it does not work, the SC will be there to act as the final adjudicating authority. KCR is ill-advised to seek a new Constitution as the present one has enough checks and balances.
Interestingly, BJP leaders argue that they are against a new Constitution though an attempt was made to revamp it in 2000, when A B Vajpayee was the PM. Justice M N Venkatachaliah was appointed the chairman of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. The commission dug into the issue and came up with a number of recommendations. But remember, the commission’s terms of reference specifically mentioned that it wouldn’t interfere in the Constitution’s basic structure. Yet, the recommendations have not been accepted by successive governments so far.