"Constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a Fundamental Law." In the light of this, differentiate between distinctive features of Constitution and Constitutionalism.

Introduction | The terms Constitution and Constitutionalism are closely related yet conceptually distinct. A Constitution is merely a document - a set of rules creating, structuring and defining the limits of governmental authority. In contrast, Constitutionalism is the ideology and practice of limited government, ensuring that state power is not exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner. As the Supreme Court observed in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 1804), the mere existence of a Constitution does not guarantee constitutionalism; it is the political maturity and traditions of a people that give life to the document.

Even dictatorial regimes may possess constitutions, but without the spirit of limitation, accountability, and rule of law, they cannot be said to embody constitutionalism.

A. Constitution – Nature and Functions | The Constitution is the supreme law of the land which provides a political structure, whether written or unwritten, followed or not, having several essential functions:

Expression of Ideology | The Constitution reflects the ideology and philosophy of the State. Example: The Preamble of India’s Constitution embodies ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity — mirroring the nation’s democratic ethos. The Soviet Constitution was more ideological, while the U.S. Constitution emphasizes governmental organization and power relations.

Expression of Basic Law | Constitutions set out basic laws modifiable through an extraordinary amendment procedure under Article 368. They enshrine fundamental rights relating to speech, religion, assembly, property etc., which form the core of the legal order.

Organizational Framework | The Constitution delineates the structure and functions of the three organs — Legislature, Executive and Judiciary — and defines their interrelationship. Articles 50, 121–122, 211–212 ensure separation of powers and institutional balance. It provides for checks and balances to prevent concentration of power.

Levels of Government | The Indian Constitution establishes a federal structure under Articles 245–263, defining the division of legislative, executive and financial powers between Union and States.

Provision for Amendment | A dynamic polity requires adaptability. The framers incorporated Article 368, ensuring the Constitution’s inherent capacity for change according to the needs of time. Hence, the Constitution is primarily a legal-structural instrument that both grants and distributes power.

B. Concept and Philosophy of Constitutionalism | Constitutionalism signifies limited government — a government restrained by law and operating within the framework of the Constitution. It transforms the Constitution from a legal text into a living moral-political order based on accountability, rule of law, and respect for individual rights.

• In Maru Ram v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 107], the Supreme Court held that constitutionalism abhors absolutism, substituting subjective satisfaction with objectivity provided by the Constitution.

• Similarly, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2007 SC 861], the Court declared that constitutionalism requires control over governmental power to ensure it does not destroy democratic principles and fundamental rights.

Constitutionalism is, therefore, the spirit of limited governance, a doctrine ensuring that no organ of the State exceeds its constitutional mandate.

C. Distinction between Constitution and Constitutionalism

Thus, the Constitution confers power, whereas Constitutionalism controls power.

D. Constitutionalism in the Indian Context |Constitutionalism forms the primary edifice of Indian democracy.

Modern constitutionalism, influenced by German jurisprudence on the Basic Structure Doctrine, emphasizes that even the organs created by the Constitution cannot alter its identity (Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1, Para 64).

Why absolute power is rejected: As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Absolute powers would jeopardize individual liberty and destroy democracy (Maru Ram, supra). Constitutionalism ensures that power is diffused, protecting human dignity and personality.

E. Mechanisms Ensuring Constitutionalism in India | Written Constitution: The detailed Indian Constitution embeds constitutionalism through explicit limitations and procedures.Independent Judiciary & Judicial Review: Articles 32 & 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce fundamental rights. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 established Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring even the amending power under Article 368 is limited.

Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances: I.R. Coelho (2007) reaffirmed that no organ may arrogate to itself powers beyond what the Constitution specifies.

Rule of Law: A fundamental postulate of constitutionalism, derived from A.V. Dicey, and reflected in Articles 14 & 21. Free and Fair Elections: Articles 324–329 ensure periodic accountability of the government.

Federalism & Decentralisation: Articles 243–243ZG establish local self-governance and diffusion of power.Fundamental Rights & Remedies: Articles 12–35, enforced through Article 32, are the bedrock of limited government.Transparency and Accountability: Ensured through mechanisms like the Right to Information and Parliamentary oversight.

CONCLUSION | H. Criticisms of Constitutionalism | Jeremy Waldron’s Critique:

He argues that constitutionalism may appear undemocratic, as it over-emphasizes limiting power rather than empowering citizens to shape laws. However, in India, constitutionalism functions within a democratic framework, balancing empowerment with restraint.

Murray Rothbard’s Critique: He contends that constitutionalism cannot effectively restrain governments since interpretation lies with the government’s own judiciary. This resonates with Indian concerns of judicial overreach, though the judiciary remains the ultimate guardian of constitutional limits