Constitutionalism - 2024 PYQ - UPSC Law Optional Mains

"Constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a Fundamental Law." In the light of this, differentiate between distinctive features of Constitution and Constitutionalism. [2024 UPSC LAW OPTIONAL] (2)(b)(15 Marks)

While a Constitution is the tangible document creating and structuring government power, Constitutionalism is the normative doctrine of limited government under a fundamental law. As held in State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N. (2025 INSC 481) , "Constitutional authorities are creatures of the Constitution and are bound by the limitations prescribed by it. No authority, in exercise of its powers, or to put it precisely, in discharge of its duties, must attempt to breach the constitutional firewall." The distinctive features are differentiated as follows:

1. Nature: Document vs. Doctrine:

• Constitution: A written, physical document containing rules that constitute the state and define governmental framework. It is the basic law of the land.

• Constitutionalism: An abstract political doctrine representing the maturity of a society insisting on limited government. As held in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1993 AIR 1804) , "Mere existence of a Constitution, by itself, does not ensure constitutionalism or a constitutional culture. It is the political maturity and traditions of a people that import meaning to a Constitution which otherwise merely embodies political hopes and ideals."

2. Function: Power-Granting vs. Power-Limiting:

• Constitution: Creates organs of state, allocates powers, and defines jurisdiction to prevent chaos. It provides the organizational framework for governance.

• Constitutionalism: Negates absolutism by ensuring no organ arrogates powers beyond constitutional limits. In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107, the Court held that "Constitutionalism or constitutional system of government abhors absolutism—it is premised on the rule of law in which subjective satisfaction is substituted by objectivity provided by the provisions of the Constitution itself." Further, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007 AIR SC 861) , the Court held that "the principle of constitutionalism advocates a check and balance model of the separation of powers, it requires a diffusion of powers, necessitating different independent centers of decision making."

3. Discretion: Unreviewable Prerogative vs. Justiciable Action:

• Constitution: May appear to confer unfettered discretion on high constitutional functionaries through textual provisions like Articles 200 and 201.

• Constitutionalism: Mandates that no power is inherently unreviewable. In State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N. (2025 INSC 481) , the Court held that withholding of assent or reservation of Bills by the Governor contrary to ministerial advice is fully justiciable. Reservation on grounds of "personal dissatisfaction, political expediency or extraneous considerations is strictly impermissible and liable to be set-aside forthwith."

4. Status: Symbolic vs. Effective Control:

• Constitution: Can serve as a symbolic façade while actual governance remains authoritarian. Even a dictatorial government may possess a written constitution.

• Constitutionalism: Exists only when limitations are effectively enforced through judicial review. As held in State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023 INSC 1017) , "The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever... such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance." The Court further held that the expression "as soon as possible" in Article 200 "conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition." However, it must be acknowledged, as noted by Murray Rothbard, that "no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men," highlighting that the effectiveness of constitutionalism ultimately depends on the fidelity of those in power.

5. Adaptability: Formal Amendment vs. Immutable Spirit: 

• Constitution: Provides a specific amendment procedure, combining rigidity and flexibility, allowing adaptation to changing times.

• Constitutionalism: Imposes inherent limitations on amending power itself; the basic structure cannot be destroyed (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ). In State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N. (2025 INSC 481) , the Court infused constitutional silences with substantive content through timelines, not by amending text but by enforcing the spirit of limited government, quoting Dr. Ambedkar: "However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot."

Conclusion: Thus, the Constitution is the body prescribing limits; Constitutionalism is the soul animating it, ensuring through judicial review that all public power is exercised reasonably, within the constitutional firewall, and never arbitrarily. As observed in the State of T.N. (2025 INSC 481) , "The soul of India is its Constitution... its sanctity and safety should be our prime concern."