01A country too divided to decide everything at once
The Constituent Assembly sat from December 1946 to January 1950, while Partition happened around it. It was writing for a country that was religiously mixed, a large Hindu majority alongside sizeable Muslim, Christian, Sikh and other communities, and linguistically split into roughly twenty major languages, no single one spoken by even 40 per cent of the population. Over 560 princely states, each with its own ruler and its own traditions, still had to be brought in.
On some of this, the Assembly took a clear, reformist position. Untouchability was abolished outright, in the text, no delay and no half-measure. Ambedkar, chairman of the Drafting Committee, pushed hard for this and got it.
On three other questions, the Assembly did not take a clear position at all. It could not agree on one national language. It could not agree on one civil law for every citizen regardless of religion. It could not agree on how far the courts should be able to force the government to act on social and economic goals. Rather than force a decision that risked breaking the country apart before it had properly formed, the Assembly wrote each of these three questions into the Constitution in a form that kept the argument alive, without stopping the Constitution itself from being finished on time.
Consider the following two statements, on India's religious composition around Independence:
- Pre-partition British India was about 20 per cent Muslim within a Hindu-majority population.
- After Independence, Muslims were still the world's second-largest Muslim community, behind only Indonesia.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A is right. Statement 1 matches the figure. Statement 2 gets the rank wrong: after Independence, India's Muslim population ranked third worldwide, behind Indonesia and Pakistan.
B tempts by assuming statement 1's figure must be the error, when the actual mistake is statement 2's rank.
C tempts by doubting both at once, when statement 1 holds without qualification.
D tempts by treating two plausible-sounding numbers as a package deal. The specific rank in statement 2, second rather than third, is exactly the kind of detail worth checking rather than assuming.
02Hindi: official language, not national language
At Independence, close to twenty major languages were in daily use, many mutually unintelligible, split broadly between the Dravidian languages of the south and the Indo-European languages of the north. Under 40 per cent of the population spoke Hindi, more than any other single language, but nowhere close to a majority. English was the only language used across the whole country for administration and education, but the freedom struggle had made keeping "the language of the ruler" permanently unthinkable.
Two sides formed in the Assembly. Members from the Hindi belt wanted Hindi declared the national language and English dropped at once. Seth Govind Das put their case directly: "we want one language and one script for the whole country." Members from the non-Hindi south rejected the idea that one language was even necessary for national unity. Shankarrao Deo's reply became the standard answer to that: "Not uniformity but unity in diversity."
Nehru and the moderate Congress leadership took a third position: Hindi was not ready to replace English immediately, since large parts of the country did not know it and it still lacked the vocabulary of a modern administration. Maulana Azad argued that a language's status cannot simply be legislated into being: "Languages are never made; they evolve."
There was also a fight over procedure. Hindi's supporters wanted the question settled by simple majority vote. Their opponents wanted something closer to unanimous agreement. Rajendra Prasad, presiding over the Assembly, warned that even a decision won by majority vote would fail in practice if a large section of the country did not accept it.
The Assembly passed the Munshi-Ayyangar formula on 14 September 1949. Hindi was named the "official language of the Union", not the national language, with English continuing for all official purposes for a further fifteen years, and the question of what happened after that handed to a future parliamentary committee. The original Eighth Schedule recognised fourteen languages in total, including Hindi.
The fifteen-year period ended in 1965. Parliament's 1967 amendment kept English in use alongside Hindi; it set no new deadline for ending English. The law also keeps English in Union communication with states that have not adopted Hindi as their official language. At the same time, the Union continues to promote the progressive use of Hindi in its official work.
What did the Munshi-Ayyangar formula of 14 September 1949 actually decide about Hindi's status?
B is right. Hindi was named the "official language of the Union," not the national language, with English continuing for a further fifteen years and the follow-up question left to a future parliamentary committee.
A tempts by assuming Hindi's supporters got the outright win they were arguing for. The Assembly adopted the moderate, delayed version instead.
C tempts by imagining an equal, symmetrical compromise that never happened. Only Hindi took the official-language title.
D tempts by overstating how open the question was left. A specific language, with a specific status and timeline, was named.
03Hindu law reform and an unfinished uniform code
Personal law, marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, was governed separately for each religious community, a leftover from colonial administration. Two questions sat inside this: should Hindu family law itself be reformed, and should one civil code eventually apply to every citizen regardless of religion.
KM Munshi argued for using the Constitution's power to reform religious custom directly. Naziruddin Ahmad argued against moving too fast: "But then that time has not yet come." What the British had not touched in 175 years of rule, and what Muslims had not changed in their own personal law in 500 years, he argued the new State should not try to force all at once.
The two questions were resolved differently. On Hindu law specifically, the Assembly left it to ordinary future legislation rather than the constitutional text. On a uniform civil code for every religion, to reassure the Muslim minority, the Assembly placed it inside the Directive Principles, Article 44, non-justiciable, meaning no court can force the government to enact it.
Parliament passed four Hindu law Acts in 1955 and 1956. They covered marriage and divorce, succession, minority and guardianship, and adoption and maintenance. These reforms were made through ordinary legislation. Article 44 separately directs the State to work towards a uniform civil code for citizens throughout India.
What changed later: Parliament made instant, irrevocable triple talaq void and illegal in 2019, after the Supreme Court had struck it down in 2017. That law addressed a specific practice.
There has also been legislation at state level: Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code came into force on 27 January 2025. Article 44 sets a goal for the whole country; it should not be read as saying that no state has acted on personal-law reform.
Match the article in List-I with what it actually provides, in List-II.
- List-I: A. Article 17 B. Article 44 C. Article 47 D. Article 48
- List-II: 1. Recommends prohibiting alcohol 2. Abolition of untouchability 3. A uniform civil code for citizens throughout India 4. Recommends prohibiting cow slaughter
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
D is right. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, Article 44 is the Uniform Civil Code, Article 47 recommends prohibiting alcohol, and Article 48 recommends prohibiting cow slaughter.
A tempts by swapping 17 and 44, both held up as the Constitution's reformist commitments, easy to reverse.
B tempts by swapping 47 and 48, both the same kind of social-reform Directive, easy to reverse.
C tempts by scrambling the pairing rather than testing one specific, checkable confusion.
04The Directive Principles are not enforceable in court, by design
The Directive Principles of State Policy set out social and economic goals for the government. Unlike fundamental rights, they are not enforceable in any court. Article 45 of Ireland's 1937 Constitution was an influence on this approach. In India, Article 37 says the Directive Principles are "fundamental in the governance of the country" and that the State must apply them when making laws.
During drafting, many Assembly members criticised the Directives as mere "pious expressions", too vague to matter since no court could enforce them. One member's objection was blunt: "there is no remedy for it."
The defence came from two places. M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar located the real check on government in voters, not judges: "That is the real sanction, and not the sanction of any court of law." Ambedkar, chairing the Drafting Committee, said the Constitution does two different jobs at once: an institutional one, laying down "what is called parliamentary democracy," and a separate job of setting out an ideal for government to aim at over time, deliberately left "not fixed or rigid" because the country itself was still changing.
Consider the following two statements about the Directive Principles of State Policy:
- They are modelled on a provision of Ireland's 1937 Constitution.
- They can be enforced by courts in the same way as fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A is right. The Directive Principles were modelled on Ireland's Constitution of 1937. They are explicitly non-justiciable, the opposite of statement 2.
B and C tempt the same way, by assuming a provision this important, described as "fundamental in the governance of the country", must be court-enforceable. That phrase describes its political importance, not its legal status. It is deliberately not enforceable.
D tempts by doubting the Ireland link too. That link is well established and directly stated in the constitutional history of Part IV.
05What to carry into the next lesson
- On untouchability, the Assembly took a clear, reformist line: abolished outright, in the text, no delay. On language, personal law and the Directive Principles, it did not take a clear line at all.
- Hindi became the Constitution's official language, not its national language. The Munshi-Ayyangar formula of 14 September 1949 gave English fifteen more years; Parliament's 1967 amendment then kept English in use alongside Hindi.
- Four Hindu law Acts were passed in 1955 and 1956. Article 44 directs the State to work towards a uniform civil code throughout India. Uttarakhand brought its own code into force in January 2025.
- The Directive Principles are modelled on Ireland's Constitution and are deliberately non-justiciable. That was not an oversight: Ambedkar and Ayyangar both defended it directly, on the record.
Recall · Close the page and answer
- Is Hindi the Constitution's "national language"?
Check
No. The Munshi-Ayyangar formula of 14 September 1949 named it the "official language of the Union" instead.
- What happened after the fifteen-year English period ended in 1965?
Check
Parliament's 1967 amendment kept English in use alongside Hindi, without setting a new end date. The Union also continues to promote the progressive use of Hindi in official work.
- Has the Uniform Civil Code been enacted?
Check
No. The Assembly placed the goal in Article 44, a Directive Principle. The four Hindu law Acts followed in 1955 and 1956. Later changes include the 2019 law on instant triple talaq and Uttarakhand's code, which took effect in January 2025.
- Which country's Constitution were the Directive Principles modelled on?
Check
Article 45 of Ireland's Constitution of 1937. In India, Article 37 explains that the Directives cannot be enforced by courts but are fundamental in governing the country.
- Are the Directive Principles enforceable by courts?
Check
No. They are deliberately non-justiciable. Ambedkar and Ayyangar both defended this choice directly, on the record.
Practice · GS Paper II and a Prelims PYQ
Three Mains questions and one Prelims question
Write the answer first. Then open the frame and check what you left out.
15 marks · 250 wordsDid the Constitution's deferral on the national-language question actually resolve the dispute? Assess with reference to what happened after 1949.
State the decision: the Munshi-Ayyangar formula of 14 September 1949 named Hindi the official language, not the national language, with English continuing for a further fifteen years and the follow-up question left to a future parliamentary committee.
Give the immediate framing: this was a genuine postponement, not a resolution. It set down an ideal in words while leaving open how, or whether, it would ever be acted on.
Give the legal outcome: the fifteen-year period ended in 1965, but Parliament's 1967 amendment kept English in use alongside Hindi and set no new end date. It also preserves English for Union communication with states that have not adopted Hindi as their official language. The Union continues to promote the progressive use of Hindi in official work.
Close: as a way of avoiding an immediate crisis in 1949, it worked. As a way of settling the underlying question, it did not; the argument was postponed, not resolved, and it still recurs today.
15 marks · 250 wordsCompare how the Constituent Assembly treated Hindu personal law and the demand for a uniform civil code. Why did it reform one and not the other?
State the two questions: whether to reform Hindu family law itself, and whether one civil code should eventually apply to every citizen regardless of religion.
Give the debate: Munshi argued for using constitutional power to reform religious custom directly; Ahmad argued the country was not ready, "that time has not yet come."
Give the two different outcomes: Hindu law was reformed through four Acts in 1955 and 1956. The goal of a uniform civil code was placed in Article 44, a Directive Principle, leaving legislation to future governments. Distinguish the Assembly's decision from later developments such as Uttarakhand's code.
Close: the difference reflects what the Assembly could agree to at the time: Hindu-law reform through ordinary legislation, and a cross-community code deferred to the future.
UPSC CSE Prelims 2015Consider the following statements regarding the Directive Principles of State Policy:1. The Principles spell out the socio-economic democracy in the country.2. The provisions contained in these Principles are not enforceable by any court.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Both statements are correct. Part IV's Directive Principles set out the social and economic goals the State is meant to work towards, and, separately, no court can compel the government to act on them.
Where this lesson supports it: Section 04 covers the Ireland model, the non-justiciable status, and the two defences the Assembly gave for choosing it deliberately, in Ayyangar and Ambedkar's own words.
15 marks · 250 wordsThe Directive Principles of State Policy were made deliberately non-justiciable. Using Ayyangar's and Ambedkar's own arguments in the Constituent Assembly, explain why this was a considered choice rather than a weakness in the text.
State the criticism first, honestly: many Assembly members called the Directives mere "pious expressions," too vague to matter, one member's objection put bluntly as "there is no remedy for it."
Give Ayyangar's defence: he located the real check on government in the electorate rather than the courts: "That is the real sanction, and not the sanction of any court of law."
Give Ambedkar's defence: the Constitution does two jobs, an institutional one, laying down "what is called parliamentary democracy," and a separate job of setting an ideal for government to work towards, deliberately left "not fixed or rigid" because the country was still changing.
Close: a deliberately non-justiciable provision is not the same as an unimportant one. The choice gave future legislatures room to act on the Directives through ordinary politics, rather than fixing one generation's answer permanently into the text.