Tuesday, May 21, 2024
HomeOpinionsConstitutional threat to secularism in India

Constitutional threat to secularism in India

Also Read

In 1948 KT Shah advocated the admission of secular, socialist and federal words in Indian Preamble which in response Dr B.R Ambedkar replied “Puting Socialist words in the Constitution will restrict future policy makers in choosing a better social economic policy like capitalism and others.

During this time When Soviets advocating more and more socialist states if we adopt socialist word in preamble it will send a negative message to the world the we are on the side on Soviets which will affect our relationship with Western Europe especially America”, Directive Principle Of State policy already has the similar characteristics which Socialism advocate in this case adding Socialist word is just extra unnecessary work.

The Constituent Assembly wanted to create a secular state but concerned about the type of secularism if we insert it in the Constitution due to the fact secularism has different meanings and understanding across borders like in France Secularism restricts the aspects of religion while the US Constitution allows free expression of Religion.

In 1976 Swaran Singh committee recommendations were implemented by the Indira Government which was not yet challenged with full motivation.

If we look the legality of secular and socialist words in terms of constitution and constitution related cases we find that in two scenarios- 42th amendment in which secular and socialist words in preamble can legally be challenged.

Keshvananda Bharti case

Supreme Court said in the feature of Constitution that “Protect the Secular value of Constitution” As we all know the word Socialist, Secular introduced in preamble in 1975 on that basis it can be challenged in court that “The removal of Secular word from Constitution doesn’t affect the secular value of Constitution due to the fact in 1973 Supreme Court already said Our Constitution is Secular and adding a word isn’t worth it.”

This words introduced during that time when Constitution was suspended, any amendment between that time period is unconstitutional due to the fact Indira Gandhi wasn’t a Prime Minister during that time as per Allahabad court who said “She has to resign”.

This arguments are capable to illustration that the introduction of secular word was unnecessary and unconstitutional.

  Support Us  

OpIndia is not rich like the mainstream media. Even a small contribution by you will help us keep running. Consider making a voluntary payment.

Trending now

- Advertisement -

Latest News

Recently Popular