New Delhi: Member of Parliament and former Union Minister Manish Tewari voiced concerns over expanding parliamentary seats to account for population growth. Tewari shared his insights on this and other compelling topics during the Legally Speaking event—the 3rd Law and Constitution Dialogue—organised by iTV Network on Friday.
On the successes and failures of the Indian Constitution, Tewari praised the Indian Constitution for its resilience and impact over 75 years. He highlighted the dedication of the framers who, even before independence, created a guiding document that has not only endured but thrived.
He credited the 1973 Supreme Court’s Basic Structure Doctrine for preserving the Constitution’s core values, protecting it from undue alterations, and strengthening India’s democratic framework.
On Parliament vs. Judiciary, Tewari acknowledged the natural tension between Parliament, representing the people’s sovereign will, and the judiciary, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. He reflected on the evolving dynamic between a progressive Parliament and a proactive judiciary, noting that both have contributed to constitutional functionality by challenging and refining each other’s actions. He emphasised the importance of balance among the executive, legislature, and judiciary while cautioning against excessive fusion of powers as seen in some Western democracies.
On the Places of Worship Act, 1991, Tewari underlined the Constitution’s inherently secular design, offering robust protection for religious freedoms and minority rights. He cautioned against revisiting historical grievances, warning that it could lead to an endless cycle of disputes. He urged looking forward to India’s collective destiny, advocating against using religion as a lens for historical reckoning.
Tewari emphasised that the Indian Constitution, as a living document, has adapted to societal and political changes over time. He dismissed arguments critiquing amendments, stating that amendments reflecting political ideologies should not undermine the Constitution’s enduring nature or its relevance.
Reacting to Constitutional Failures,Tewari highlighted the imbalance between the centre and states as a significant failure of the Constitution. He noted that while the Constitution describes India as a union, it has historically favoured the centre over states, limiting state autonomy and flexibility. This skewed balance, originating from the Republic’s founding years, remains unaddressed by successive generations of lawmakers.
Tewari raised concerns about increasing parliamentary seats to reflect population growth. He argued that a larger parliament could hinder deliberative lawmaking, stressing the need for thoughtful planning to ensure effective legislative scrutiny and debate, rather than overwhelming the system with sheer numbers.
Tewari stated on One Nation, One Election that the feasibility of the proposal depends on its legal framework and draft legislation. He questioned whether it aligns with the Constitution’s basic structure, particularly federalism, which requires state and national cooperation. He suggested that the concept might face constitutional challenges and doubts about cost savings and efficiency.