<p>NCERT's new Class 9 Social Science textbook has become the centre of a fresh debate, not just because it adds the 1975 Emergency for the first time, but also because it appears to have left out the Preamble and the words "secular" and "secularism" that featured prominently in the earlier version. However, the omission had gone largely unnoticed in the larger political fight over the Emergency chapter, even as the Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress continue to spar over how that period should be taught to students.</p><p>The revised textbook, 'Understanding Society: India and Beyond-Part 1', has been developed under the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023. It moves away from the earlier standalone political science textbook and instead brings together material from history, geography, political science and economics in a single integrated volume.</p><p><strong>Also read | </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/challenges-to-democracy-in-india-for-first-time-ncert-to-teach-class-9-students-about-1975-emergency-indira-gandhi-1782362189369"><strong>'Challenges to democracy in India': For first time, NCERT to teach Class 9 students about Emergency</strong></a></p><h2><strong>Preamble left out of new Class 9 Social Science textbook</strong></h2><p>In the new book, the Constitution is discussed through chapters on the Constituent Assembly, constitution-making, democratic institutions and fundamental rights. The text describes the Constitution as a "robust, flexible, transformative, and responsive" document and highlights the values of liberty, equality, justice and fraternity.</p><p>But unlike the older Class 9 textbook, it does not reproduce the Preamble in full. The earlier 'Democratic Politics-I' volume had used the Preamble as the starting point for explaining the Constitution, describing it as the philosophy on which the entire constitutional framework was built.</p><p><strong>Also read | </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ncert-emergency-chapter-draws-political-fire-as-congress-and-bjp-trade-barbs-attempt-to-divert-india-s-history-1782444368216"><strong>NCERT Emergency chapter draws political fire as Congress and BJP trade barbs: 'Attempt to divert India's history'</strong></a></p><h2><strong>A sovereign, Socialist, SECULAR, Democratic Republic</strong></h2><p>The new book also fails to include the words "secular" or "Secularism". Notably, the previous versions of the textbook spelt out the meaning of terms such as "Sovereign", "Socialist", "Secular", "Democratic" and "Republic". They explained secularism as a system with no official religion in which the state gives equal respect to all faiths.</p><p>However, a review of the new textbook shows that the words "secular" and "secularism" do not appear anywhere in the volume. There is also no indication that the concepts will be dealt with in a later class. That change has added another layer to the controversy surrounding the book.</p><p>The new textbook also revises the treatment of the Election Commission. Where the earlier book emphasised its independence and wide-ranging powers, the new version focuses more narrowly on its constitutional authority and role in conducting elections.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

While political parties continue to clash over NCERT's new chapter on Emergency, another change has largely escaped attention. The revised Class 9 Social Science textbook no longer has the Preamble or the words "secular" or "secularism", both of which featured prominently in earlier editions.

NCERT's new Class 9 Social Science textbook has become the centre of a fresh debate, not just because it adds the 1975 Emergency for the first time, but also because it appears to have left out the Preamble and the words "secular" and "secularism" that featured prominently in the earlier version. However, the omission had gone largely unnoticed in the larger political fight over the Emergency chapter, even as the Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress continue to spar over how that period should be taught to students. The revised textbook, 'Understanding Society: India and Beyond-Part 1', has been developed under the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023. It moves away from the earlier standalone political science textbook and instead brings together material from history, geography, political science and economics in a single integrated volume. Also read | 'Challenges to democracy in India': For first time, NCERT to teach Class 9 students about Emergency Preamble left out of new Class 9 Social Science textbook In the new book, the Constitution is discussed through chapters on the Constituent Assembly, constitution-making, democratic institutions and fundamental rights. The text describes the Constitution as a "robust, flexible, transformative, and responsive" document and highlights the values of liberty, equality, justice and fraternity. But unlike the older Class 9 textbook, it does not reproduce the Preamble in full. The earlier 'Democratic Politics-I' volume had used the Preamble as the starting point for explaining the Constitution, describing it as the philosophy on which the entire constitutional framework was built. Also read | NCERT Emergency chapter draws political fire as Congress and BJP trade barbs: 'Attempt to divert India's history' A sovereign, Socialist, SECULAR, Democratic Republic The new book also fails to include the words "secular" or "Secularism". Notably, the previous versions of the textbook spelt out the meaning of terms such as "Sovereign", "Socialist", "Secular", "Democratic" and "Republic". They explained secularism as a system with no official religion in which the state gives equal respect to all faiths. However, a review of the new textbook shows that the words "secular" and "secularism" do not appear anywhere in the volume. There is also no indication that the concepts will be dealt with in a later class. That change has added another layer to the controversy surrounding the book. The new textbook also revises the treatment of the Election Commission. Where the earlier book emphasised its independence and wide-ranging powers, the new version focuses more narrowly on its constitutional authority and role in conducting elections.

<p>While political parties continue to clash over NCERT's new chapter on Emergency, another change has largely escaped attention. The revised Class 9 Social Science textbook no longer has the Preamble or the words "secular" or "secularism", both of which featured prominently in earlier editions.</p>

NCERT Emergency controversy widens as Preamble, 'secularism' disappear from Class 9 Social Science textbook

<p>The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 24) rejected pleas which challenged the inclusion of words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution under the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency.</p>

<p>Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, while reading out the order, said that Article 368 of the Constitution grants amending power to the Parliament which also extends to the Preamble.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar reaffirmed the “incontrovertible” power of the Parliament to carry out amendments in the Constitution under Article 368 if the amendments do not violate its basic structure.</p>

<p>The bench added that the addition of terms cannot be invalidated on the grounds that the original adoption date of November 26, 1949, has been retained by the Preamble.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“The fact that the Constitution was adopted and actively given to themselves by the people of India on 26th of November 1949, does not make any difference. The date of the adoption would not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution,” said the CJI, while reading out the judgement.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read:</strong>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-pm-modi-joins-world-leaders-to-congratulate-trump-on-his-win-in-us-election-773939">Indian PM Modi joins world leaders to congratulate Trump on his win in US election</a></p>

<p>On November 22, while reserving its order, the bench said that there has been a judicial review of the 42nd Amendment and the decisions taken by the Parliament during that time cannot be nullified.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“The way we understand socialism in India is very different from the way other academics may understand. In our context, socialism primarily means welfare state. That’s all. It has never prevented the government. There’s this private sector which is thriving, doing well… The word socialism used over here is in a different context that the State must ensure it’s a welfare state and that there should be equality of opportunity. That’s done through so many Articles. Then why worry about that score? Why go into all that?” said the bench.</p>

<h2><strong>Here's what the petitioners said&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>It was argued by the petitioners that the matter needed consideration by a large bench, however, the judges disagreed.</p>

<p>The petitioners said that “when this amendment was brought in, we were never heard. It was the Emergency (period)”.</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;India-China: Beijing And New Delhi Signal Need For Normalised Ties&nbsp;</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-china-beijing-and-new-delhi-signal-need-for-normalised-ties-wion-originals-777628/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>The petitions were filed by social worker Balram Singh, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and former BJP parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, who claimed that the original vision of the framers of the Constitution was distorted by the 42nd Amendment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It was argued that the terms “socialist” and “secular” were deliberately excluded by the framers during Constituent Assembly debates.</p>

<p>The legitimacy of the 1976 Parliament, which was operating in the Emergency and had an extended tenure, was also questioned by the petitioners.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who was representing Singh, said, “The tenure of the Lok Sabha was extended to address emergency requirements, not to amend the Constitution. Adding these words without public consultation distorted the original intent of the framers.”</p>

<p>India's former prime minister Indira Gandhi had declared an Emergency from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, during which the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by the Parliament.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 24) rejected pleas which challenged the inclusion of words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution under the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency.

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 24) rejected pleas which challenged the inclusion of words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution under the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, while reading out the order, said that Article 368 of the Constitution grants amending power to the Parliament which also extends to the Preamble. The bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar reaffirmed the “incontrovertible” power of the Parliament to carry out amendments in the Constitution under Article 368 if the amendments do not violate its basic structure. The bench added that the addition of terms cannot be invalidated on the grounds that the original adoption date of November 26, 1949, has been retained by the Preamble. “The fact that the Constitution was adopted and actively given to themselves by the people of India on 26th of November 1949, does not make any difference. The date of the adoption would not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution,” said the CJI, while reading out the judgement. Also Read: Indian PM Modi joins world leaders to congratulate Trump on his win in US election On November 22, while reserving its order, the bench said that there has been a judicial review of the 42nd Amendment and the decisions taken by the Parliament during that time cannot be nullified. “The way we understand socialism in India is very different from the way other academics may understand. In our context, socialism primarily means welfare state. That’s all. It has never prevented the government. There’s this private sector which is thriving, doing well… The word socialism used over here is in a different context that the State must ensure it’s a welfare state and that there should be equality of opportunity. That’s done through so many Articles. Then why worry about that score? Why go into all that?” said the bench. Here's what the petitioners said It was argued by the petitioners that the matter needed consideration by a large bench, however, the judges disagreed. The petitioners said that “when this amendment was brought in, we were never heard. It was the Emergency (period)”. Watch: India-China: Beijing And New Delhi Signal Need For Normalised Ties The petitions were filed by social worker Balram Singh, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and former BJP parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, who claimed that the original vision of the framers of the Constitution was distorted by the 42nd Amendment. It was argued that the terms “socialist” and “secular” were deliberately excluded by the framers during Constituent Assembly debates. The legitimacy of the 1976 Parliament, which was operating in the Emergency and had an extended tenure, was also questioned by the petitioners. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who was representing Singh, said, “The tenure of the Lok Sabha was extended to address emergency requirements, not to amend the Constitution. Adding these words without public consultation distorted the original intent of the framers.” India's former prime minister Indira Gandhi had declared an Emergency from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, during which the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by the Parliament. (With inputs from agencies)

SC rejects pleas challenging ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in Indian Constitution’s Preamble

A new row in the Indian politics after Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said key words have been dropped from the Indian Constitution. The Congress leader said that the copies of the Constitution which the lawmaker carried in their hands didn't have the word 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble.

Key words from Constitution of India dropped? | All you need to know about Preamble of Constitution

<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards.</p>

<p>The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years.</p>

<p>Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone.</p>

<p>&quot;In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 &amp; 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble,&quot; said the petition.</p>

<p>The petition further asked the Centre to establish a &quot;One Nation One Education Board&quot; system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.&nbsp;</p>


The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards. The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years. Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone. "In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 & 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble," said the petition. The petition further asked the Centre to establish a "One Nation One Education Board" system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.

SC rejects petition seeking common syllabus for all boards

<p>The idea of a written Constitution was seen in terms of its ability to limit the governmental power. Instead of examining the content of the Constitution, this proposition focused on its functional reality and suggested classifying Constitutions as normative, nominal and semantic.</p>

<p>It is not enough that a Constitution is valid in the legal sense. To be normative i.e. real and effective, it must be faithfully followed by all citizens. It requires the socioeconomic and political situation conducive to its adoption. In other words; a normative constitution provides norms which have been accepted by the society in actual practice.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>However, normativity cannot be taken for granted; it requires actual verification in each case. Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality. A nominal Constitution, therefore, implies that present socio-economic conditions of the country are not yet prepared for accepting the norms laid down by the Constitution.</p>

<p>Perhaps the adoption of the Constitution is premature. But the hope exists, sooner or later, the government and people will agree to the constitutional norms. When a Constitution instead of controlling the governmental power has itself become a tool in the hands of few to perpetuate their vested interest and curtail the individual liberty, it is described as a semantic Constitution.</p>

<p>Whether Indian Constitution is to be characterised as normative, nominal, or semantic cannot be decided from its text alone. In each case, insight into the realities of the power process is required. Drafted in the background of a long nationalist movement Indian Constitution incorporated all the fundamental policy and value choices of a normative Constitution; the most significant was the idea of constitutionalism.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>However, the working of the Constitution in these seven decades casts a doubt on its normative character. In fact, discharge of emergency powers of the Constitution demonstrates more of its semantic character.</p>

<p>The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system. The power of the executive was enhanced overnight and, eventually, turned into an authoritarian regime, which not only curtailed the freedom of citizens but also, paralysed the independent judiciary. Supersession of judges, arrests and detentions of political leaders, student union leaders, eminent personalities, without trials shocked the entire nation.</p>

<p>Enactment of Maintenance of Internal Security Act and Defense of India Rules silenced every possible opposition. Imposition of family planning programmes, execution of birth control methods like sterilisation and vasectomy witnessed the invasion of governmental power into the personal lives of common people to control sexuality. The censorship of the press to curb the democratic voices was another feature which our government possibly learned from its alien predecessor.</p>

<p>The tendency to disregard the constitutionalism was also reflected in the exercise of power under Article 356 popularly known as &lsquo;President Rule&rsquo;. Being in nature an emergency and extraordinary power meant to be exercised only as a last resort; the power had more often been misused to distract the democratic and federal fabric of the constitution.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>A survey of the use of Article 356 shows that as of now, the President&rsquo;s Rule has been imposed more than hundred times. Sarkaria Commission which analysed 75 cases of President&rsquo;s Rule from June 1951 to May 1987 ( 1950-1954- 3 times, 1955-1959- 3 times, 1960-1964- 2 times, 1965-1969- 9 times, 1970- 1974-19 times, 1975-1979- 21 times, 1980-1987- 18 times) found in more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional.</p>

<p>On three occasions (in 1979, 1980 &amp;amp; 1992) assemblies had been dissolved en mass. A Constitution is expected to endure for a long time and therefore the success of institutions requires in those who have to work, readiness to learn from failures of the past, respect the viewpoints of others and capacity for developing healthy conventions an aspect where we perhaps failed and failed miserably.</p>

<p>The post-emergency phase too witnessed a series of draconian laws like AFSPA, which shows that life and liberty of the citizens is still a plaything in the hands of a majority government. A lot needs to be done in the wake of global standards to claim a normative status.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality.

The idea of a written Constitution was seen in terms of its ability to limit the governmental power. Instead of examining the content of the Constitution, this proposition focused on its functional reality and suggested classifying Constitutions as normative, nominal and semantic. It is not enough that a Constitution is valid in the legal sense. To be normative i.e. real and effective, it must be faithfully followed by all citizens. It requires the socioeconomic and political situation conducive to its adoption. In other words; a normative constitution provides norms which have been accepted by the society in actual practice. Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality. × However, normativity cannot be taken for granted; it requires actual verification in each case. Even though legally valid, a Constitution that is not fulfilling the expectations of people in practice lacks existential reality. A nominal Constitution, therefore, implies that present socio-economic conditions of the country are not yet prepared for accepting the norms laid down by the Constitution. Perhaps the adoption of the Constitution is premature. But the hope exists, sooner or later, the government and people will agree to the constitutional norms. When a Constitution instead of controlling the governmental power has itself become a tool in the hands of few to perpetuate their vested interest and curtail the individual liberty, it is described as a semantic Constitution. Whether Indian Constitution is to be characterised as normative, nominal, or semantic cannot be decided from its text alone. In each case, insight into the realities of the power process is required. Drafted in the background of a long nationalist movement Indian Constitution incorporated all the fundamental policy and value choices of a normative Constitution; the most significant was the idea of constitutionalism. The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system. × However, the working of the Constitution in these seven decades casts a doubt on its normative character. In fact, discharge of emergency powers of the Constitution demonstrates more of its semantic character. The proclamation of Emergency (1975) witnessed an extraordinary phase that not only threatened the existence of constitutionalism in India but also, its legal and judicial system. The power of the executive was enhanced overnight and, eventually, turned into an authoritarian regime, which not only curtailed the freedom of citizens but also, paralysed the independent judiciary. Supersession of judges, arrests and detentions of political leaders, student union leaders, eminent personalities, without trials shocked the entire nation. Enactment of Maintenance of Internal Security Act and Defense of India Rules silenced every possible opposition. Imposition of family planning programmes, execution of birth control methods like sterilisation and vasectomy witnessed the invasion of governmental power into the personal lives of common people to control sexuality. The censorship of the press to curb the democratic voices was another feature which our government possibly learned from its alien predecessor. The tendency to disregard the constitutionalism was also reflected in the exercise of power under Article 356 popularly known as ‘President Rule’. Being in nature an emergency and extraordinary power meant to be exercised only as a last resort; the power had more often been misused to distract the democratic and federal fabric of the constitution. In more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional. × A survey of the use of Article 356 shows that as of now, the President’s Rule has been imposed more than hundred times. Sarkaria Commission which analysed 75 cases of President’s Rule from June 1951 to May 1987 ( 1950-1954- 3 times, 1955-1959- 3 times, 1960-1964- 2 times, 1965-1969- 9 times, 1970- 1974-19 times, 1975-1979- 21 times, 1980-1987- 18 times) found in more than 52 cases out of 75, Article 356 has been used for political purposes rather than constitutional. On three occasions (in 1979, 1980 &amp; 1992) assemblies had been dissolved en mass. A Constitution is expected to endure for a long time and therefore the success of institutions requires in those who have to work, readiness to learn from failures of the past, respect the viewpoints of others and capacity for developing healthy conventions an aspect where we perhaps failed and failed miserably. The post-emergency phase too witnessed a series of draconian laws like AFSPA, which shows that life and liberty of the citizens is still a plaything in the hands of a majority government. A lot needs to be done in the wake of global standards to claim a normative status. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Does the Constitution of India fulfill expectations of citizens

preamble

Preamble, News on Preamble, stories on Preamble, articles on Preamble, Preamble stories at Wion, Preamble news, Preamble latest news