Verdict on an Outraged Constitution: Distorted Perception of Our Constitutional Framework

The constitution of our country, the supreme law of the land, has been outraged through distorted perception. It is a bold and a challenging assertion but nevertheless a reality. Indeed it is an outrage since misunderstandings, misrepresentation or misinterpretations constitute as much an outrage on the constitution as the enactment of a black law or amending the constitution contrary to its intents and purposes. Fifty years have gone by since the constitution has come into effect and yet it remains enigmatic incomprehensible and ambiguous and what not. This is so in respect of every aspect of our constitution, including the framework. It appears as if the commentators, constitutional experts, members of the legal profession and political scientists are either conniving at or viewing with one another in this game of distortion of the constitution. As if they do not want to lag behind, even high-powered commissions and committees have joined the bandwagon in the perpetuation of this outrage, each one with his/its own preconceived notions or particular objective in view. They do not realise that in the process of distortion they are bringing discredit not only to the architects of the constitution but are also destroying the edifice so assiduously built with such care and concern. The present study is concerned with the distortion of the framework itself which the author considers as an outrage since on the proper understanding and interpretation of the framework depends the understanding of almost every aspect of the constitution, more particularly of the interconnected and interdependent aspects of state autonomy and the office of the governor. The study is based on primary sources of the constitution. The perspective that emerges as a result of this exercise demolishes in its entirety the existing view on the framework and its related themes. The findings may not be acceptable in the first instance, as we are for now over five decades to accept a contrary view, no matter how it had gained currency. But even a cursory glance through the pages of this study would convince even the diehards that their perception and understanding of the constitution needs to be revised and fall in line with this exposure.