New Delhi- Legal scholar and practicing lawyer Gautam Bhatia has launched his latest book, The Indian Constitution: A Conversation with Power, offering a thought-provoking analysis of the Constitution’s role in shaping, channelling, and constraining power. The book was formally introduced at an event at the India International Centre (IIC), Delhi, on March 12, 2025, where a distinguished panel engaged in an in-depth discussion on its themes and implications.

Bhatia’s central thesis argues that the Indian Constitution inherently exhibits a “centralising drift” in both its design and interpretation over the past 75 years. He suggests that this trend—an incremental yet tangible shift of power towards the central executive—was influenced by the framers’ historical context and has been reinforced by judicial interpretation.

Panelist Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate General for Punjab and a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court, largely concurred with this observation. He pointed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concerns about localized prejudice, which contributed to a preference for central authority during the Constitution’s framing. Additionally, he highlighted the Congress leadership’s apprehensions about national unity in post-independence India as another factor driving centralisation.

“The local was prejudiced, and the central was liberating, cosmopolitan,” Farasat noted, referencing the Constituent Assembly Debates. However, he also argued that the Constitution still allows for more democratic interpretations, should institutions choose to adopt them.

A Critique of the Framers’ Design

One of the book’s most controversial assertions is its challenge to the traditional reverence for the Constitution’s framers. Bhatia argues that the seeds of contemporary constitutional issues are not merely a result of judicial misinterpretation but are embedded within the Constitution’s structure itself.

“The assumption that we have a perfectly designed Constitution that has only been misinterpreted by the courts is flawed,” Bhatia stated at the launch. Instead, he urged a critical examination of the Constitution’s fundamental structure and the long-term implications of the framers’ choices.

Bhatia emphasized that constitutional interpretation is always a matter of choice. He highlighted moments in history where the Supreme Court had the option to reinforce decentralization but instead made choices that further concentrated power in the central government’s hands.

He framed the Constitution as a “power map” that dictates how public power is distributed and contested. According to Bhatia, various constitutional themes—federalism, fundamental rights, asymmetric federalism, pluralism, and diversity—are all interlinked. A centralised government, he argued, often comes at the cost of individual and state rights.

While the book’s analysis received praise, panelists provided nuanced perspectives.

Sema Chishti, author and journalist, challenged the centralising drift argument, emphasizing the Constitution’s adaptability. She pointed out that the document has undergone 106 amendments in 75 years, reflecting its resilience and responsiveness to change. Chishti also defended the Constitution’s silence on certain matters as intentional, leaving room for democratic evolution.

Sasikant Senthil, Member of Parliament, viewed the book as a valuable lens to understand constitutional and societal transformations. He acknowledged the centralising tendencies in judicial interpretation but stressed the Constitution’s enduring principles as a safeguard against inequality.

The Kashmir Example and Constitutional Common Sense

Bhatia explained that his book was partly inspired by the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which led him to reconsider the prevailing judicial interpretations of federalism. His initial belief in the unconstitutionality of the move was challenged when he examined past Supreme Court rulings that framed Article 370 as a temporary provision leading toward constitutional uniformity rather than recognizing asymmetric federalism.

Additionally, Bhatia introduced the concept of “constitutional common sense,” which he described as the unspoken assumptions within legal practice that influence judicial reasoning. He argued that such assumptions often tilt constitutional interpretation in favor of centralisation.

Bhatia also borrowed the term “constitutional Bodyline bowling” (adapting the American concept of constitutional hardball) to describe how the executive continuously tests the limits of its power without explicitly violating the Constitution. He clarified that this is not unique to any particular government but is part of a broader institutional dynamic where different state organs push the boundaries of their authority.

The Indian Constitution: A Conversation with Power offers a fresh perspective on India’s constitutional framework by focusing on the inherent power dynamics within the document. While Bhatia’s argument for a centralising drift finds substantial support, the panel discussion also highlighted counterarguments regarding the Constitution’s adaptability and resilience. The book is poised to spark critical conversations about constitutional design, interpretation, and the future of Indian democracy.

For law students, scholars, and policymakers, Bhatia’s work serves as a crucial text that re-examines the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution through the lens of power distribution and contestation.

-Meharaz is a final-year law student at the University of Delhi with a strong interest in public policy, real-time politics, and social issues.