We the People of India: Constitutional Sovereignty and the Question of Regime Change

The Preamble to the Constitution of India begins with the words, “We, the People of India.” Hence, can all citizens believe that they are sovereign in India? This is what is often read into the opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

Now, looking back at the 75 years of the Constitution of India, the interpretation of these words assumes great importance because, nowadays, they have become the foundation and the invocation for urging the youth to come forward and support a change of regime.

The expression “change of regime” connotes a great deal. Moreover, some people support this demand by arguing that a change of government is always a right of the citizens of this country, guaranteed by the Constitution. All these statements, however, are made out of context, with constitutional provisions being interpreted without regard to their broader constitutional context.

This is somewhat similar to surrogate advertising or a proxy campaign, in which an object is advertised ostensibly to promote a particular product, such as soda, but the actual purpose is to promote a particular brand of alcohol. The same is true of surrogate advertisements for pan masala and gutka.It is observed that  toolkit for regime change may consist of several steps: identifying an issue; forming groups, including NGOs; conducting social media campaigns to make the movement appear faceless; creating a belief that the Constitution and its institutions do not function effectively; propagating the narrative that elections are rigged and the judiciary is compromised; placing youth and women at the forefront to gain sympathy; seeking support from serving or retired bureaucrats, retired High Court or Supreme Court judges, and members of the police and armed forces; and, thereafter, attempting a change of regime by installing compliant political representatives or puppets.

Right now, political parties in the opposition in India appear desperate for a change of regime.

In this situation, the Congress Party, the country's oldest political party, and its allies seem to have forgotten that India has a Constitution intended to protect the sovereignty of India. The people of India are represented through Parliament and the State Legislatures by a well-defined mechanism known as elections. Any law passed by Parliament after following due process may be subjected to judicial review. Even the judiciary cannot claim to be sovereign.

This raises a fundamental question: Who is sovereign in India?The answer is that the Constitution is supreme. But what does it mean to say that the Constitution is sovereign? Neither the legislature nor Parliament can claim absolute sovereignty; the question does not even arise in the case of the executive.

The answer lies in correctly appreciating the meaning and significance of the Constitution that we, the people of India, adopted , enacted and gave ourselves to the Constitution of India  on 26 November 1949 and it came into effect on 26 January 1950. This is the crux of a meaningful understanding of our Constitution. Therefore the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution is the foundation to understand the scheme of the law of India.In India Constitutional Sovereignty prevails.

The Constitution embodies the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, assigning distinct roles to the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Their powers, functions, and duties are defined by the Constitution.

Similarly, the legislature is constituted through an electoral process. A representative government, which enjoys the confidence of the elected members of Parliament, is ordinarily entrusted with a five-year term, subject to the requirement of maintaining the confidence of the House. The same principle applies to State Legislatures, in accordance with the constitutional framework. The judiciary, in turn, is vested with the power of adjudication.

It is appropriate to  remind  of what Dr. B. R. Ambedkar said on 4 November 1948 that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment in India; it needs to be cultivated and nurtured. The essence of constitutional morality is simple: respect for constitutional institutions by the ruling party as well as by the parties in opposition. Only then can the Constitution retain its legitimacy and be regarded as sacrosanct. In the absence of trust in the Constitution on the part of both the ruling party and the opposition, a written Constitution risks losing its meaning and effectiveness.

The behaviour of the opposition, in the present circumstances, appears to suggest that it has no remedy available to it regarding the functioning of the Election Commission. However, when the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court, can a political march directed towards the Supreme Court be considered appropriate in a constitutional democracy? What is the propriety of political parties writing letters to the Chief Justice of India in such circumstances?

Political parties seem to have forgotten that their own survival depends upon the Constitution. As an international constitutional expert, Laurance Hide has observed, a Constitution is not merely written in ink; its meaning is also shaped by the blood and sacrifices through which constitutional freedoms are secured. It has a deeper significance that must not be overlooked.

All the members of the Constituent Assembly who participated in the making of the Constitution had contributed to the freedom struggle in different ways. They were committed to the cause of the nation. The Indian freedom struggle is often presented through a half-truth: that India attained freedom solely through petitions, peaceful non-cooperation, and boycott movements, without bloodshed. This, however, is only part of the story.The original Constitution of India, duly signed by the members of the Constituent Assembly on 24 January 1950, displays not only the image of Mahatma Gandhi but also depictions of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and other figures associated with India's struggle for independence. These illustrations portray the struggle to free Bharat Mata, representing India, from foreign rule. They were created by the highly decorated artist Nandalal Bose of Santiniketan.

Therefore, in the name of youth or under the pretext of exercising the political right to protest, political parties must not forget the sacrifices associated with the making of the Constitution and the achievement of independence. The history of our freedom struggle is a reminder that the Constitution carries the weight of the sacrifices of countless people who gave their lives for India's freedom. To disregard this history is to overlook the sacrifices of those who fought for the nation.

A change of regime in India is possible through the electoral process. Any attempt to bring about such a change by circumventing or undermining the constitutional framework must be nipped in the bud.During the protests in July 2026, the issue of international intervention was also brought to the fore. That particular angle cannot be forgotten and warrants careful consideration.

Moreover, social media has become a powerful tool for influencing the younger generation, which may be particularly susceptible to persuasive narratives at an age when many young people aspire to become revolutionaries and regard Bhagat Singh as their ideal. However, equating an elected representative government in independent India with the British colonial government is highly illogical and constitutionally untenable.Such comparisons must be questioned and admonished by all those who have faith in the Constitution, democracy, and the electoral process.