Are we justified in ‘implementing’ the Constitution in our homes and families? I, in this article have pondered upon this sacrosanct document’s (though primarily a political document) ‘implementation’ in the family and its probable implications alike.
‘Family’ is a unit of ‘society’, both functionally and structurally. This principle is reiterated in the CRC’s Preamble, Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10 and 23 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Children Summit (1990) further lays down that family ‘plays a key role in social development…’ If such is truly the case, as it is shown to be, the family is the root for the imbibition and inculcation of values and virtues besides mores.
The next question for our consideration then, is whether the ideals, principles enshrined in the Constitution can be made the subject- matter of inculcation for the individual. I strongly contend that they can and must be. As opposed to a motley of statutory dos and don’ts, the Constitution serves a rich nutritive of principles to be inculcated by the individual. Inculcation of ‘Constitutional morality’, a self- imposed state of learning by the individual (not purely or even, as a political being) upon himself is spoken of by Dr Ambedkar referencing Grote who explains the term as ‘the inculcation of a rare and a difficult sentiment, of a new sense of passionate attachment and paramount reverence to the Constitution and its sense of goodwill’. Dr Ambedkar has himself while delivering a speech on ‘The conditions precedent for the successful working of Democracy’ to the Poona District Law Library members on December 22, 1952, championed ‘the text of the Indian Constitution is only a skeleton and its flesh was to be a robust Constitutional morality’. Dr Ambedkar has definitely conceived the term to include a social, political and an economic basis of living, as opposed to a merely politico- administrative one.
The Apex Court in Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar made a painful observation that the marital personality (of a married person vis a vis his/ her spouse) ought to encompass the individual personality (vis a vis the same person). The import of this observation is however assuaged by Joseph Shine wherein it was remarked that “familial structures cannot be regarded as private spaces where Constitutional rights are violated. To grant immunity in situations when the rights of individuals are in siege, is to obstruct the unfolding vision of the Constitution.”
However the question being, whether individuals are justified in drawing this morality within their homes. Whether or not such system of morality forms a complete system in itself, its nature etc are questions to be taken up not now.
To buttress my view, I would cite Dr Ambedkar who repeatedly remarks that “…it is only where people are saturated with Constitutional morality, that one can take the risk of omitting from the Constitution, details of administration and leaving it for the legislature to prescribe them. … Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.”
