The 'Munshi-Ayangar Formula' used in the Constituent Assembly was related to

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:
The 'Munshi-Ayangar Formula' is a key historical compromise reached in the Constituent Assembly concerning the highly contentious issue of India's Official Language. The debate pitted Hindi proponents against those favoring English or other regional languages. To break this impasse, K. M. Munshi and N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar drafted this formula. The core of this formula stipulated that Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, would be recognized as the official language of the Union. However, crucially, it also provided for the continued use of English for all official purposes for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution. This compromise was instrumental in leading to the adoption of Part XVII of the Constitution, particularly Articles 343 to 351, which deals with the Official Language of the Union, regional languages, and the language of the judiciary and texts of laws. The formula successfully balanced the aspiration to promote Hindi with the practical necessity of ensuring a smooth transition and respecting the linguistic diversity and administrative needs of the non-Hindi speaking states.

The incorrect option is 1:
Centre-State Relations were a major topic of discussion in the Constituent Assembly, resulting in the detailed provisions of Part XI of the Constitution, particularly Articles 245 to 263. While figures like Munshi and Ayyangar contributed to these discussions, the specific 'Munshi-Ayangar Formula' was not designed to address the division of powers, financial relations, or administrative ties between the Center and States. Other committees and drafting elements handled these complex federal provisions. The formula was focused exclusively on resolving the specific linguistic deadlock.

The incorrect option is 2:
Rights of Minorities were addressed primarily by the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, and Tribal and Excluded Areas, headed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The sub-committees, resolutions, and debates concerning minority rights—especially cultural and educational rights (like Article 30)—were distinct from the Official Language compromise. The Munshi-Ayangar Formula dealt with the language used by the government of India, not the fundamental rights granted to religious or linguistic minority groups.

The incorrect option is 3:
Preventive detention was a controversial subject debated within the Constituent Assembly, specifically related to the fundamental right to personal liberty (Article 22). This provision allows for the detention of a person without trial under certain circumstances. This complex legal issue was handled as part of the Fundamental Rights section of the Constitution, involving extensive debates on state security versus individual freedom. It was not the focus of the compromise formula put forth by Munshi and Ayyangar, whose contribution centered on the entirely separate administrative and political matter of official communication language.