What are the various grounds on which the Constituent Assembly has been criticised? e various grounds on which the Constituent Assemble has been criticised?

The Constituent Assembly of India was constituted in 1946 on the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946. It was a Sovereign body, which functioned as a Legislative body as well as drafted the Constitution of India.

Criticisms of the Constituent Assembly: 

1. Not a representative body: the Assembly was not directly elected on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise but was partly elected (indirectly) and partly nominated (by the princely states). 

1. Election based on separate electorates: Representatives of different communities were to be elected by the members of that community in provincial Legislative Assembly who themselves were elected on a limited franchise. 

1. Some critics maintain that it was not a sovereign body as it was created on the proposals of the British Government. Further, they said that the Assembly held its session with the permission of the British Parliament. 

1. Delay in working of the Assembly: The Constituent Assembly took 2 years ,11 months and 18 days to draft the constitution. It held only 11 sessions during this time. 

1. Dominated by Indian National Congress: The Assembly was heavily dominated by the INC leaving no space for regional parties. Granville Austin, a British Constitutional expert, remarked: ‘The Constituent Assembly was a one-party body in an essentially one-party country. 

1. Dominated by lawyer-politician: Critics argue that other sections like doctors, farmers, teachers etc. were not represented adequately. 

1. This domination of lawyers is also attributed to bulkiness and complicated language of the constitution. 

1. Dominated by Hindus: Critics often accuse the Assembly of being dominated by Upper Caste Hindus, lacking representation from backward communities. Lord Viscount Simon even called it ‘a body of Hindus’. 

Even though indirectly elected, the Constituent Assembly was representative, it consisted of the people from all sections of the Indian society. Drafting a constitution for such a diverse and vast country is a time-consuming process. The lawyer dominated assembly understood the significance of ‘words’ and ‘phrases’ for smooth functioning of the India state. Therefore, we can conclude that although it has its limitations, Constituent Assembly drafted a comprehensive constitution. 

Criticisms of the Constituent Assembly: 

1. Not a representative body: the Assembly was not directly elected on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise but was partly elected (indirectly) and partly nominated (by the Princely States). 
2. Election based on separate electorates: Representatives of different communities were to be elected by the members of that community in provincial Legislative Assembly who themselves were elected on a limited franchise. 
3. Some critics maintain that it was not a sovereign body as it was created on the proposals of the British Government. Further, they said that the Assembly held its session with the permission of the British Parliament. 
4. Delay in working of the Assembly: The Constituent Assembly took 2 years ,11 months and 18 days to draft the constitution. It held only 11 sessions during this time. 
5. Dominated by Indian National Congress: The Assembly was heavily dominated by the INC leaving no space for regional parties. Granville Austin, a British Constitutional expert, remarked: ‘The Constituent Assembly was a one-party body in an essentially one-party country. 
6. Dominated by lawyers and politicians: Critics argue that other sections like doctors, farmers, teachers etc. were not represented adequately. 
7. This domination of lawyers is also attributed to bulkiness and complicated language of the constitution. 
8. Dominated by Hindus: Critics often accuse the Assembly of being dominated by Upper Caste Hindus, lacking representation from backward communities. Lord Viscount Simon called it ‘a body of Hindus’. 

Even though indirectly elected, the Constituent Assembly was representative, it consisted of the people from all sections of the Indian society. Drafting a constitution for such a diverse and vast country is a time-consuming process. The lawyer dominated assembly understood the significance of ‘words’ and ‘phrases’ for smooth functioning of the India state. Therefore, we can conclude that although it has its limitations, Constituent Assembly drafted a comprehensive constitution.