Constitution Review Commission

A Constitution Review Commission is a formal body established by a government to examine how a constitution functions in practice and to propose necessary reforms or amendments. It aims to ensure that the constitution remains relevant to contemporary social, political, and economic realities. Such commissions are typically advisory in nature, and their recommendations become effective only when enacted through constitutional amendment procedures. In India, the most notable example of such a body is the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC).

Background and Purpose

Every constitution, despite its comprehensiveness, must adapt to evolving governance challenges and societal changes. Over time, constitutional provisions may become outdated, ambiguous, or inadequate in addressing modern issues. A constitution review commission is thus established to:

• Evaluate the functioning of constitutional provisions in actual governance.
• Identify structural weaknesses and areas requiring reform.
• Recommend amendments or measures to strengthen institutions and promote accountability.
• Ensure that reforms uphold the basic structure and guiding philosophy of the constitution.

Such commissions serve to balance continuity with change, reinforcing democratic principles while refining constitutional mechanisms for efficiency and justice.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC)

The NCRWC represents India’s most significant attempt to undertake a comprehensive review of its Constitution. It was constituted by the Government of India on 22 February 2000 under the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. Its mandate was to examine, in the light of more than five decades of experience, how the Constitution could respond better to emerging governance and developmental challenges.
Importantly, the Commission was instructed to suggest improvements without altering the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution, thereby preserving its fundamental character as laid down by the judiciary.

Composition and Organisation

The NCRWC was chaired by Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah, former Chief Justice of India. It consisted of eleven members, including distinguished jurists, academics, social scientists, and administrators. The Commission was assisted by a full-time Secretary of the rank of Secretary to the Government of India and a team of researchers and consultants.
The composition ensured representation of diverse expertise and viewpoints, enabling a balanced assessment of constitutional working across legislative, executive, and judicial dimensions.

Methodology and Consultations

The Commission followed a comprehensive and participatory methodology. It:

• Released consultation papers on major constitutional themes.
• Invited written suggestions from individuals, experts, and civil society organisations.
• Conducted regional consultations and public hearings to gather opinions from different parts of the country.
• Analysed existing constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and administrative practices.
• Compared India’s constitutional experience with that of other democratic systems to identify best practices.

This inclusive approach ensured that the review reflected both institutional experience and public sentiment.

Report and Major Recommendations

The NCRWC submitted its final report on 31 March 2002 after two years of intensive deliberations. The report comprised over 200 recommendations, covering a broad range of constitutional, political, and administrative issues. Some of the key recommendations included:

• Strengthening the parliamentary system while improving accountability of the executive to the legislature.
• Reforming the anti-defection law to prevent political instability.
• Enhancing transparency and integrity in electoral processes through measures such as disqualification of candidates with criminal charges and state funding of elections.
• Rationalising Centre–State relations, particularly in financial devolution and distribution of powers.
• Establishing mechanisms for judicial accountability while safeguarding judicial independence.
• Strengthening local self-government institutions through greater devolution of powers and resources.
• Introducing provisions for direct democracy tools such as referendums and citizens’ initiatives in limited areas.
• Creating an effective system for public audit, ethics in governance, and citizen charters.
• Improving functioning of Parliamentary Committees and reducing disruptions in legislative proceedings.

The report also emphasised the need for promoting constitutional literacy, enhancing human rights protection, and ensuring speedy justice through reforms in court administration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Implementation and Outcomes

While the NCRWC provided a comprehensive framework for constitutional and institutional reforms, its recommendations were not legally binding. Subsequent governments did not implement most of them, though certain ideas influenced later administrative and electoral reforms indirectly.
The lack of political consensus, apprehensions about reopening sensitive constitutional debates, and the perception that the existing framework was fundamentally sound contributed to the limited follow-up action. Nonetheless, the report remains a valuable reference document for legal scholars, policymakers, and reform advocates.

Criticism and Evaluation

The NCRWC faced several criticisms during and after its tenure:

• Some political parties questioned its timing and legitimacy, viewing it as an attempt to alter constitutional fundamentals.
• Critics argued that several recommendations were incremental rather than transformative, offering limited solutions to systemic challenges.
• Concerns were also raised about overlap with existing institutions, particularly regarding judicial and parliamentary reforms.
• Despite public consultations, some commentators felt that the process lacked adequate citizen representation from rural and marginalised communities.

However, supporters of the Commission noted that it helped revive debate on constitutional functioning and promoted a deeper understanding of governance challenges within the federal democratic framework.

Broader Significance

The establishment of the Constitution Review Commission represented a significant moment in India’s constitutional evolution. It reaffirmed the importance of periodic assessment of constitutional mechanisms and the necessity of aligning them with contemporary realities.
The NCRWC’s work underscored several enduring principles:

• The basic structure doctrine serves as the inviolable foundation of the Constitution.
• Genuine reform requires both technical expertise and political consensus.
• Transparency, accountability, and public participation are central to maintaining constitutional vitality.
• Incremental institutional reform can strengthen governance without destabilising the constitutional order.