Justice, social, economic and political.

Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

Equality of status and opportunity.

Fraternity assuring the dignity of individual.

And unity and integrity of the nation.

The constitution was adopted. We are running nation in accordance with the said Constitution for last 50 years. From our experience now we may have no other option but to admit that we miserably have failed to achieve the aforesaid purposes of the constitution as declared by its framers.

52.05% of the citizens are living below the poverty level.

52.21% of the people are illiterate.

30% of the human resources of the country are not getting any opportunity of being employed

On the other hand 80% of the total income of the nation is being enjoyed by less than 10 per cent of the population. 70% of the total national assets are owned by 5 per cent of the citizens. Cause of this undesirable situation must be looked into. The feudal social system, absence of land reforms, wrong development planning created economic crisis. Total surrender to the imperialists in the name of globalisation has further made the situation worse. Economic crisis created social insecurity from that political instability and corruption have emerged. The system has generated criminals in every walk of life including the field of politics. In this perspective late Hon'ble Justice Hansaria left one question reviewing the functioning of the constitution for the last 50 years, "Does India need new constitution?"

Some learned people supporting ruling party having a popular Prime Minister are advocating Presidential form of government in place of parliamentary form of Government. As if replacement of Parliament by an individual will save us from the present situation. With this slogan the ruling party may avoidits crisis but not the nation. In my opinion the social economic, and political crisis of India is not connected dwith the question "who will rule The President of the Prime Minister on behalf of the Parliament but the question is how we will be ruled. It is undeniable that Indian union is a republic by compulsion. States were reorganised broadly on the basis of language of the local people creating homogenic states needing more pronounced federal characters. But the constitution is essential unitary than federal in character and the mounting bias of the centre to assume greater power are tending to destroy federal autonomy. If one looks at the Legislative list of the constitution in the Seventh Schedule on is not left with any doubt that sidereal State power lies with the centre. List-1 and List-111 of the Seventh

Schedule of the constitution together leave on major field, except 'land' that again without mines and minerals, for State legislation Consequent constraints on financial resources are too severe for any State to really thrive. Finance commissions assume that all resources belong to the Centre and be given so far as States were concerned they might always an inadequate, share of some tax revenue. Original idea was that the Centre shall retain defence, foreign affairs and communication. There is need for a new look at the constitution for resurrecting the federation. For four decades national Development Council remained in deep coma. Only UF government resurrected the same with tremendous success. But the new political government that has been installed at the Centre with their new national agenda has sent NDC to hibernation. The Constitution has enough loophole to destroy the States political independence. Article 355 and 356 are instances on the point.

Preamble to the constitution, and secularism and socialism in particular, remain almost unachievable through this constitution. Rights of the minorities have been secured by demolishing Babri Masjid and burning to death Christian social workers and gutting Churches. Right to freedom of religion has sought to be secured by Article 25 to28 but under the guise of those fredoms people have provoked competition among religious groups so much so that in the conference of Education Ministers prayer in the form of Saraswati Bandana and burning of Sonia in Tirupati temple have been the result. The word socialism in the Preamble was introduced by capitalist rulers. It has only buttressed monopoly capital and globalisation. Recent experience has shown that socialist economy adapted to its changed context may alone insulate our economy against dangerous tremors in momentary and fiscal fields as have been the fate of our South Asian neighbours. Thus this constitution demands a fresh look.

Our Constitution does not recognise separation of powers. But it does not define how much this power may be overlap. Supreme Court has said 'we do not govern' but correct when governance is wrong. This is mere tautology. Power of the Legislature has been addicted to some bureaucrat who reign that power. These and many more are the problems thrown open by the experiment with out constitution. Nation needs to debate for a change of some of the aspects of the Constitution.

So far judiciary is concerned we have seen in the above situation judiciary has empowered and empowering itself in the last 20 years after its apparent set back in the power game in the hand of Executives during emergency. During the last 10 years the process has reached to the extreme. Contrary to the letters of Article 217. Judges are now for all practical purposes their own appointing authorities. They have fixed their own service conditions and perquisites by their own directions. They have debarred the people even the bar from making any criticism against the judges. Now demand has been raised for financial autonomy. Public funds has to be handed over without the approval of people Representatives.

Judiciary has invented the "basic feature" of the Constitution and now the said basic features has become more than 18 in number. Most of them bestow the greater powers to the highest judiciary. These "basic features" cannot be altered by the Parliament. In this context the courts are now not the courts are now not only dictating the Executives in the name of public interest litigation or social action litigation but also directing the legislatures to frame laws in the way judiciary want.