Popular sovereignty, constitutionalism and the Indian constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
India's next Constitution Day will mark seventy years since the adoption of the Constitution. 1 The Preamble to the Indian Constitution affirms that on 26 November 1949 the people of India adopted, enacted and gave to themselves the Constitution, 'having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic'. 2This resolution can be interpreted as a successful exercise of sovereignty by the Indian people.More precisely, one may argue that (i) the Indian Constitution stemmed from the sovereignty inherent in the people of India; and that (ii) the legitimacy of the Constitution is, therefore, grounded in the principle of popular sovereignty.When considering the idea of sovereignty in relation to the Indian Constitution, one may also argue that (iii) the Constituent Assembly identified (state) sovereignty as a status that the Indian political community should enjoytogether with democracy and a republican form of government; and that, accordingly, (iv) the Indian Constitution recognises the Indian Republic as a sovereign state. 3This year's anniversary, which shortly follows the 70 th anniversary of India's independence (acquired on 15 August 1947) provides a fitting occasion for reflection upon the foundations of the Constitution of India.In particular, I would like to discuss the role of the principle of popular sovereignty in the contemporary Indian constitutional framework: an issue that can be illustrated with a brief analysis of propositions (i) and (ii) above.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".