From the point of view of human rights, social justice, rule of law, good governance and inclusive values, we have certainly made an excellent constitution. In some cases, there are exemplary arrangements for other countries as well. It has also been praised in international forums.

 However, the fact that there are many gaps, incompleteness, inconsistencies or contradictions in terms of draft, concept or architecture from the head to the tail of the constitution is not hidden . This is something felt by many who are directly or indirectly involved in the making of the constitution.

In the near future, the review and revision of the constitution was not considered when the constitution was promulgated. It is a situation that is being pointed out from time to time by political circles and experts. The two major mainstream parties, Congress and UML, have put forward constitutional amendment as the main basis for establishing the legitimacy of the ruling coalition. Due to this reason, the discussion of review is getting heated.

It has been nine years since the constitution was promulgated on October 3. We all remembered the constitution and celebrated the day in our own way. In the discussions held in that context, it was seen that the challenges/problems of the implementation were discussed more than the achievements of the implementation of the constitution.

In the meantime, government building and manufacturing, parliamentary performance, operation of the federal system, electoral system, constitutional justice, democracy within political parties, implementation of economic and social rights, citizenship, inclusion and social justice, transitional justice, constitutional institutions, public service delivery, Widespread dissatisfaction has been manifested in multifaceted issues such as the rule of law, economic governance, etc.

When the decade of implementation of the constitution is approaching, it is quite natural to discuss the need for constitutional review. The expectation of timely interpretation, review and amendment of the constitution has been directly or indirectly manifested in the constitution.

Democratic countries have been adopting the revision of the constitution as an important means to keep the constitution alive and relevant. The practice of addressing issues raised by independent reviews through revisions is well established.

In some democratic countries, there are also instances where the constitution itself clearly guides the implementation of the constitution. For example, Article 45 of the South African Constitution, 1996, created a joint committee with representatives from both Houses of Parliament mandated to review the implementation of the Constitution. The

committee seems to make the review credible by adopting an open and transparent process. The committee takes public notices and takes feedback on the amendments even from the citizen level. Properly analyzes and categorizes the suggestions received . Holds a public hearing. Seeks specialized legal analysis and opinion. Based on the review recommendations made by the Joint Committee, some amendments to the Constitution have been made. Some amendment proposals are under discussion .

For example, South African Sign Language has also been recognized as an official language (Article 6) by the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution. The 20th Amendment Bill proposed to set up a separate constitutional body called Cyber ​​Commissioner to deal with the cyber challenges seen in recent times is under consideration.

The committee recommended an amendment to Article 25 to address the unjust distribution of land during the apartheid regime and its ill effects. The amendment bill was brought forward so that the government may not pay compensation when land is acquired for the purpose of land reform. It could not be passed without consensus. However, the national debate seems to be ongoing.

How the constitution of India worked during fifty years, what challenges were encountered in its implementation and the constitution has been reviewed by forming a commission to bring it up to date and to maintain its validity.

On February 22, 2000, the review commission formed by the decision of the government was given the mandate to identify the strong and weak points of the constitution based on the experience of the past 50 years and recommend the necessary amendments to ensure a parliamentary democracy that can address the changing needs of India's socio-economic development. The report seems to have had some influence on subsequent revisions. Even before that, it seems that there have been attempts to review the subject matter. Like a

, in 1983 to review the Centre-State relationship, Justice R.S. A commission (known as the Sarkaria Aayog) was constituted under the chairmanship of Sarkaria. In accordance with the recommendations given by the commission to strengthen cooperative federalism, an inter-state council of permanent nature was created by amending Article 263. The Law Commission of India, though constituted by an Executive Order, is effective. It has also studied and researched the constitution and law enforcement issues to highlight the necessity and justification of amendments.

In this perspective, it is natural for us to have a review and revision debate. But the constitution review should not be influenced by the mood of system change. The constitution should not be blamed for the shortcomings of the government. Amendment of the constitution should be realistic. How well the

review agenda moves forward, how informed and reassured stakeholders are about its purpose and scope makes a big difference. Review and amendment should be aimed at enhancing the legitimacy of the Constitution. It is important to be aware and aware from the beginning that the situation should not be created in which the obtained legitimacy is eroded. If the agenda of amendment is advanced based on parliamentary arithmetic with

urges and biases, it risks being counterproductive if a holistic approach is not taken. If progress through review is required, its scope should include the following:

First, identify what went well in terms of implementation, maintain it and make recommendations for improvement.

Second, in terms of implementation, where and what are the shortcomings to expose those aspects. Also, finding the underlying causes of deficiencies. Addressing such causes and suggesting measures to make implementation effective.

Third, to find gaps, holes, and contradictions in the context of addressing some questions that have occurred and may occur in a changing context. Also, to suggest necessary measures including amendment of the Constitution to address them.

Fourth, to make recommendations for necessary modifications and adjustments based on a neutral evaluation of how the performance of the institutions maintained by the constitution and newly created ones was, whether the institutions were reliable and effective or not. Rather than overall, the objective evaluation of the decade-long period of the implementation of the constitution should be reviewed. should be placed in the center.

The review should begin by assuming the justification and relevance of the provisions in the constitution. A biased review of any arrangement or system created by the Constitution can lead to a crisis of ownership and ownership. Therefore, it is fruitful to adopt the middle path of review. Based on a credible review of ten years of achievements and challenges, successes and failures, proposals for revisions should come forward.

The approach of the parties in the government has become selective, it will be harmful if the review process is created only for the amendment of certain provisions with vested interests. It does not enhance the political and social legitimacy of the Constitution, but rather undermines it. The thing to be aware of is that any excess will cause damage sooner or later. Therefore, it is important to adopt the right approach.

While talking about the review and amendment of the Constitution, the provision made in Article 265 regarding parliamentary review of other commissions under Part 27 (National Commission for Women, National Dalit Commission, National Inclusion Commission, Tribal Commission, Madhesi Commission, Tharu Commission, and Muslim Commission) It should not be forgotten that it is of a specific nature.

It is necessary to review these commissions by adopting a different method and system according to the intention of the Constituent Assembly. This work can be done in consultation with experts and stakeholders by forming a joint committee under Article 97 of the Constitution, representing members of both the Houses of Parliament. It seems necessary to independently evaluate the relevance of

commissions, effectiveness of performance, functional and structural challenges, jurisdictional limits, official appointment system, coordination, relationship with parliament.

It is appropriate to focus the review on how constitutional commissions established with the aim of promoting long-term peace and social justice can be strengthened by addressing the root causes of conflict.

In South Africa, the Commissions under Part 9 were also reviewed by a joint committee consisting of members of both Houses. The committee gave important recommendations regarding making the commissions stronger and more effective.

Another aspect to be considered is that we have the problem of not being ready to investigate the practical and cultural problems in the political party, party leadership, and government level and solve those problems. There is always a tendency to find fault in the constitution and system. It is also necessary to think about the fact that the root of the

problem is in the constitutional system or in the morals, behavior, thinking and working style of the system's drivers, it is necessary to have an objective account of it.