The Double-Edged Sword: Contradictions in the Indian Constitution's Promise of Protection

When Rights and Remedies Collide

A critical exploration of how India's Constitution, while designed to protect, often finds its own promises in conflict—where the pursuit of justice, equality, and freedom sometimes turns against itself.

Author: Mrunal Sayam

Abstract

India's Constitution, while visionary in its inception, operates within a complex web of contradictions that often blur the delicate line between protection and power. Its flexible design, which was originally intended to ensure adaptability and resilience, has paradoxically allowed rights to be constrained by vague limitations, conflicting legal provisions, and uneven enforcement mechanisms. Consequently, the delivery of justice often depends more on judicial interpretation than on the original constitutional intent.

This paper introduces the Living Constitution Framework, a modern governance model designed to transform the Constitution from a static historical text into a self-correcting civic system. It proposes five interlinked reforms to modernize Indian democracy: dynamic constitutional audits, a tech-integrated justice delivery system, civic literacy networks, transparent lawmaking processes, and equity-driven policy evaluation. Together, these mechanisms aim to bridge the widening gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that rights are not merely written but practiced; that justice is delivered rather than delayed; and that India's supreme law evolves alongside the people it serves.

Introduction

Consider that sentiment for a moment. We are raised to believe that the Constitution was built to protect the citizenry, to keep state power in check, and to ensure that the people always come first. But what if the very document that promised liberty also handed the government the tools to quietly dismantle it?

To understand this paradox, we must rewind to 1970. A small monastery in Kerala, led by a man named Kesavananda Bharati, awoke to find that the government had passed a law allowing it to seize their land—all in the name of the "public good". The monk never sought a revolution; he simply wanted to protect what was rightfully his. Yet, his case—simple as it seemed on the surface—grew into a monumental legal battle. It became the longest case hearing in Indian judicial history, heard by 13 judges of the Supreme Court who deliberated for over five months to answer a single, terrifying question: Can Parliament do whatever it wants with the Constitution?

The case ripped open a massive fault line in Indian democracy. On one side, Parliament argued it possessed absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. On the other, the judiciary warned that such unchecked power could erase the very soul of the nation. Imagine a scenario where the document guaranteeing your freedom could, with a single amendment, legally take it away.

In 1973, the Court delivered a verdict that still defines India today: Yes, Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its "basic structure". Principles like democracy, liberty, and the rule of law were declared untouchable. It sounded like a victory. But here is the unsettling truth: no one ever clearly defined what this "basic structure" actually is. That loophole hangs over the nation today, granting both Parliament and the judiciary immense—and often ambiguous—power.

Five decades later, that tension remains. Laws regarding land, speech, privacy, and dissent are still passed and challenged along these same fault lines, leaving the lingering question: how much power is too much power?. The Constitution, in all its brilliance, left space for interpretation, which is simultaneously its greatest strength and its most significant danger.

This paper dives into that contradiction to explore how a document designed to empower citizens also enables control. We will examine how undefined powers, blurred boundaries, and moral paradoxes have shaped everything from land rights to freedom of expression. By the end, you may start to question the same thing the monk once did: Who really owns our rights—the people, or the Constitution that governs them?

Background: When Constitutional Promises Clash with Reality

The Indian Constitution is celebrated globally as the ultimate shield of democracy, solemnly resolving to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all citizens. Yet, beneath this revered facade lies a minefield of contradictions, loopholes, and implementation gaps that expose ordinary people to uncertainty, injustice, and unchecked power. These are not mere technicalities; they are real fractures that determine who lives freely, who speaks safely, and who is left at the mercy of the State. Ignoring them is not an option; understanding them is the first step toward facing the truth about the limits of our "supreme law".

I. The Problem of Undefined Boundaries

Some rights exist clearly on paper but are left undefined in their limits, creating uncertainty and granting the State broad interpretive power.

Freedom of Speech – Article 19

Article 19(1)(a) promises freedom of speech and expression, but Article 19(2) immediately counters this by allowing "reasonable restrictions" in the interests of public order, morality, and the security of the State. These restrictions are vague enough to be weaponized. This ambiguity has been utilized to silence dissent, charge journalists under sedition laws, suppress protests, arrest comedians for jokes, and label protestors as threats to national integrity.

Right to Privacy in the Digital Age – Article 21

While Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the formal recognition of the right to privacy in 2017 exposed a new challenge. Laws governing data collection, storage, and surveillance remain incomplete or ambiguous. From Aadhaar data leaks to debates on mass surveillance, citizens' personal information is increasingly exposed. The Constitution promises security, yet it does not explicitly regulate how the State collects or uses personal data, creating a modern grey zone where digital lives are laid bare without clear legal protection.

II. When Rights Collide with Each Other

At times, the Constitution contains provisions that directly conflict with one another, leaving the promise of justice dependent entirely on interpretation.

Equality vs. Reservations – Articles 15 & 16

The Constitution explicitly forbids discrimination based on religion, caste, or gender. Yet, it simultaneously empowers the State to make "special provisions" for socially and educationally backward classes. While this is crucial for social justice, it raises a difficult question: when does equality begin to look like inequality? Court cases ranging from Indra Sawhney (1992) to the EWS reservations (2019) demonstrate how the same constitutional promise can be interpreted as both empowerment and exclusion, depending on one's standpoint.

Uniform Civil Code vs. Personal Laws – Article 44

Article 44 urges the State to implement a Uniform Civil Code. Yet, decades later, India continues to operate under religion-based personal laws that treat citizens differently depending on their faith. Matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance are governed not by equality, but by identity. This contradiction raises a moral dilemma: can equality coexist with cultural or religious exceptions? Furthermore, who decides which practices are "acceptable" or "just"?

The Shah Bano case (1985) exposed this fault line brutally. A Muslim woman's right to maintenance was upheld by the Supreme Court, only for Parliament to overturn the verdict under pressure from religious groups. The Constitution, meant to protect the individual, yielded to political compromise. Can a document that promises "justice to all" remain silent when justice depends on which god you pray to? This contradiction challenges the very idea of equality—can citizens be truly equal while maintaining different rules for different religions?

III. Rights in Practice: Law vs. Reality

Even when rights are clearly stated, enforcement often lags, creating a cavernous gap between the law and lived experience.

Right to Constitutional Remedy vs. Judicial Delays – Articles 32 & 226

Article 32 promises citizens the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and Article 226 extends similar powers to High Courts. In theory, this is the ultimate safety net. In practice, justice becomes a waiting game. Prolonged judicial delays, massive backlogs, and complex procedures often render this right ineffective.

Citizens face years, sometimes decades, before justice is served. India's courts are clogged with millions of pending cases, and justice often crawls instead of arriving. The Nirbhaya case, a tragedy that shook the nation, took nearly eight years from the crime to the execution of the convicts. Eight years for something that should have been immediate and absolute. The phrase "justice delayed is justice denied" has never felt more real. When justice demands years of waiting, endless paperwork, and emotional exhaustion, is it still worth the fight? Most citizens give up before they begin, worn down by a system that promises protection but delivers delay.

Right to Life – Article 21

Article 21 states that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". However, the phrase "procedure established by law" has been repeatedly weaponized. From the Emergency of 1975, where thousands were detained without trial, to contemporary debates on custodial deaths and internet shutdowns, the State continues to define what "procedure" means. The law promises security, yet enforcement often depends on the restraint and morality of those in power. Thus, the right to life becomes conditional—you are alive only until the government decides otherwise.

Directive Principles vs. Fundamental Rights

The Constitution divides its soul between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Fundamental Rights are enforceable in court; Directive Principles are moral guidelines, not legal guarantees. On paper, they are meant to complement each other—liberty balanced by justice, freedom tempered by welfare. But in practice, they clash. Courts have often had to choose between individual rights and social reform ideals. More often than not, power sides with what is "legally right" rather than what is morally fair.

For example, economic liberty under Article 19(1)(g)—the right to trade or practice a profession—has repeatedly outweighed Directive Principles calling for fair wages and humane working conditions. The result is a system where profit enjoys legal protection, while welfare is left to political will. If the Constitution itself ranks morality below legality, can we truly call it a document for the people?.

Environmental Protection vs. Industrial Development – Article 48A

Directive Principle Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment. However, industrial expansion, mining, and large infrastructure projects often override environmental concerns. Forests are cleared and rivers diverted despite constitutional guidance because environmental protection is aspirational, while economic growth enjoys legal primacy. Citizens bear the cost of ecological degradation while the law provides little immediate recourse.

IV. The Living Constitution Framework

Core Problem: The Constitution's flexibility has become its weakness. Rights are guaranteed, yet diluted by exceptions, delays, and uneven enforcement. The Goal: The solution must address interpretation, implementation, and accountability—not just amending words, but restructuring how those words are lived.

The Conceptual Solution: "The Living Constitution Framework"

Instead of viewing the Constitution as a static text interpreted solely by courts and politicians, this framework proposes a living civic system that evolves through transparent feedback loops between citizens, institutions, and the law.

1. Dynamic Constitutional Review (Institutional Recalibration)

Goal: A continuous audit of constitutional practice.

Problem: Loopholes, contradictions, and outdated clauses often remain unchecked for decades. Solution: Establish a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC)—an independent, citizen-linked, and data-driven body that conducts periodic audits of how constitutional provisions perform in real life. Instead of waiting for crises, the CRC acts as a preventive maintenance system.

• Mechanism:

  • Conducts real-time audits using AI-powered analysis of court data, petitions, and bills.

    
    

  • Reviews Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles every five years, reporting on compliance.

    
    

  • Publishes an annual "State of Constitutional Justice Report" ranking states on justice delivery.

    
    

  • Holds public hearings every five years for citizens and scholars to suggest changes.

    
    

  • Recommends targeted amendments to fix contradictory provisions.

    
    

Why this works: It transforms the Constitution from a historic text into a living governance protocol. By measuring democracy like GDP, we ensure the law evolves with society, not behind it.

2. Tech-Integrated Justice System (Accessible Enforcement)

Goal: Rights are meaningless if you can't afford to claim them.

Problem: Justice delayed, inaccessible courts, and procedural paralysis leave citizens powerless. Solution: Launch a National Digital Justice Network (NDJN), a unified grid connecting courts, tribunals, and grievance systems.

• Mechanism:

  • E-courts and online hearings across all districts to remove location barriers.

    
    

  • AI-driven legal aid assistants in 22 Indian languages for free guidance.

    
    

  • Blockchain case tracking to ensure evidence and verdicts are tamper-proof.

    
    

  • Smart deadlines: Cases pending beyond two years trigger automatic review.

    
    

  • Virtual legal clinics in every panchayat run by paralegals for last-mile access.

    
    

Why this works: It decentralizes enforcement. This turns legal access into a public utility—like electricity—that is available, measurable, and guaranteed.

3. Civic Constitutional Literacy & Feedback Loop (Citizen Empowerment)

Goal: The Constitution belongs to the people, but most don't know what is inside it.

Problem: Public ignorance allows for the misuse and manipulation of rights. Solution: Build a National Constitutional Literacy Grid (NCLG)—a bottom-up system to democratize understanding and oversight.

• Mechanism:

  • Mandatory civic curriculum from Class 6 onward focusing on rights and duties.

    
    

  • Gamified mobile apps and quizzes to make awareness social and viral.

    
    

  • Public dashboards tracking real-time data on freedom and justice in each state.

    
    

  • Citizen assemblies and local review days to submit reports to the CRC.

    
    

  • Reward systems for citizens who complete civic training modules.

    
    

Why this works: Awareness is the first layer of protection. A population that understands its Constitution cannot be quietly stripped of its rights.

4. Transparent Lawmaking & Public Accountability Network (The Open State Model)

Goal: Democracy fails when laws are written in darkness.

Problem: Citizens rarely know how laws are made or altered until they are negatively affected. Solution: Establish a Public Lawmaking and Accountability Network (PLAN) to make every law trackable and explainable.

• Mechanism:

  • Open legislative tracking with clear summaries in all major languages.

    
    

  • Pre-legislative public consultation via verified platforms.

    
    

  • "Right to Explanation" laws requiring plain-language justifications for new acts.

    
    

  • AI oversight engines to flag proposed laws that may contradict constitutional principles.

    
    

Why this works: Secrecy breeds abuse. This system builds transparent governance into lawmaking, exposing political opportunism before it becomes policy.

5. Social Justice Engine (Economic & Environmental Balancing)

Goal: Rights without equity are only half fulfilled.

Problem: Economic and environmental policies often undermine equality and sustainability. Solution: Create a Social Justice Engine (SJE)—a decision-support system that evaluates policies through a Constitutional Impact Assessment (CIA).

• Mechanism:

  • Uses AI to assess policy impact on gender, caste, ecology, and labor.

    
    

  • Assigns a "Justice Score" to every bill or project.

    
    

  • Links funding incentives to Justice Scores to reward rights-protecting policies.

    
    

  • Integrates climate justice and digital ethics into governance.

    
    

Why this works: Justice shouldn't be an afterthought; it should be a design filter. It ensures progress never comes at the cost of principle.

Initiative vs. Practice vs. Impact

The following table visualizes how these initiatives would function in practice and their projected impact.

National-Level Benefits

If adopted as a combined governance model, this constitutional modernization yields tangible national outcomes:

• 
  

  +8-10 million new jobs in legal tech, civic data, and local governance.

  
  
• 
  

  Faster grievance redressal, cutting years into months.

  
  
• 
  

  Reduced corruption and leakage in welfare spending.

  
  
• 
  

  Higher citizen trust in institutions, reviving democratic engagement.

  
  
• 
  

  Global recognition for India as a model for constitutional innovation in the digital age.

  
  

Before and After: Transforming Governance

Here is an illustration of how these initiatives can transform static systems into dynamic, citizen-centric governance.

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution stands as both a shield and a sword—a masterpiece of vision, yet burdened by contradictions that test its own promise of protection. Rights that were meant to liberate often depend on interpretation, privilege, or patience, leaving citizens waiting for justice that arrives too late or not at all.

The Living Constitution Framework offers a path forward—one that treats the Constitution not as an artifact of history, but as a living system capable of self-correction. By institutionalizing periodic review, digital accessibility, civic education, transparent lawmaking, and justice-driven policy design, we can transform governance from reactive to proactive.

If adopted, this model doesn't rewrite India's founding text; it fulfills it. It ensures that democracy becomes measurable, justice becomes accessible, and rights become real. The future of India's Constitution lies not in preservation, but in evolution—in its ability to grow as the nation it guards continues to change. The Constitution was never meant to be a relic; it was meant to breathe, to evolve, and to protect. The question is not whether it can change, but whether we will allow it to grow with us. In that evolution lies not just reform, but renewal