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.&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

“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:&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>

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;

“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.

<h2>Here's what the petitioners said&nbsp;</h2>

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:&nbsp;India-China: Beijing And New Delhi Signal Need For Normalised Ties&nbsp;

<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>

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;

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.&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

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

In a move which the state argues is needed to bolster the secular system while critics say encroaches on religious freedoms, the French parliament votes on the bill to battle Islamist extremism on Tuesday.&nbsp;

With an eye on 2022 elections, President Emmanuel Macron has championed the bill, which seeks to tighten rules on issues ranging from religious teaching, online hate to polygamy.&nbsp;

It has been debated in a highly charged atmosphere in France after three attacks late last year by extremists including the beheading in October of teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.&nbsp;

The law is dubbed the anti-separatism bill as ministers fear Islamists are creating communities that reject France's secular identity and laws, as well as its values, such as equality between the sexes.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/frances-anti-religious-bill-lawmakers-to-vote-on-the-draft-bill-364010/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community, is still shaken by the succession of massacres committed by Islamist militants from January 2015 that left hundreds dead.&nbsp;

The National Assembly lower house is expected to vote on the legislation in the afternoon after a total of 135 hours of debates that saw some 313 amendments adopted. &nbsp;

Macron's ruling party has a large working majority, meaning the legislation is expected to pass, but the upper house Senate will also examine the draft legislation in the coming months and could amend it.&nbsp;

If that it is the case, the bill will then go back to the National Assembly for a final reading.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/macrons-new-anti-extremism-bill-sparks-fresh-protests-in-france-363888" hreflang="en">Macron's new anti-extremism bill sparks fresh protests in France</a>

Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said after the final debate on Saturday that the bill "provides concrete responses to... the development of radical Islam, an ideology hostile to the principles and values on which the Republic is founded."&nbsp;

Paty's killing prompted the inclusion of the specific crimes of online hate speech and divulging personal information on the internet that could be used to harm someone.

In a move which the state argues is needed to bolster the secular system while critics say encroaches on religious freedoms, the French parliament votes on the bill to battle Islamist extremism on Tuesday.

In a move which the state argues is needed to bolster the secular system while critics say encroaches on religious freedoms, the French parliament votes on the bill to battle Islamist extremism on Tuesday. With an eye on 2022 elections, President Emmanuel Macron has championed the bill, which seeks to tighten rules on issues ranging from religious teaching, online hate to polygamy. It has been debated in a highly charged atmosphere in France after three attacks late last year by extremists including the beheading in October of teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The law is dubbed the anti-separatism bill as ministers fear Islamists are creating communities that reject France's secular identity and laws, as well as its values, such as equality between the sexes. × France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community, is still shaken by the succession of massacres committed by Islamist militants from January 2015 that left hundreds dead. The National Assembly lower house is expected to vote on the legislation in the afternoon after a total of 135 hours of debates that saw some 313 amendments adopted. Macron's ruling party has a large working majority, meaning the legislation is expected to pass, but the upper house Senate will also examine the draft legislation in the coming months and could amend it. If that it is the case, the bill will then go back to the National Assembly for a final reading. Also Read: Macron's new anti-extremism bill sparks fresh protests in France Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said after the final debate on Saturday that the bill "provides concrete responses to... the development of radical Islam, an ideology hostile to the principles and values on which the Republic is founded." Paty's killing prompted the inclusion of the specific crimes of online hate speech and divulging personal information on the internet that could be used to harm someone.

French parliament to vote on anti-extremism bill to bolster ‘secular’ system

The Constitution of India also known as the &quot;Supreme law of India&quot;&nbsp;lays down the framework of the political principles and duties of the government institutions.&nbsp;

It establishes constitutional supremacy, overriding parliamentary supremacy.&nbsp;

Adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26,&nbsp;1949, it came into effect on&nbsp;January 26, 1950.

With the adoption of the Constitution, India ceased to be a dominion of the British rule.

The adoption of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, made India a &quot;sovereign democratic and republic&quot;.&nbsp;

However&nbsp;one of the amendments made to the Constitution&nbsp;changed its description&nbsp;from &quot;sovereign, democratic republic &quot; to &quot;sovereign socialist secular democratic republic&quot;.

The Indian Constitution underwent a major amendment during the emergency.

The Congress headed by Indira Gandhi enacted the Forty Second amendment,&nbsp;officially known as The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.

The amendment brought changes to almost all parts of the Constitution.&nbsp;

It reduced the power of the Supreme Court and High Court. The political sovereignty was transformed into parliamentary sovereignty.&nbsp;The Prime minister&#39;s office was given all the powers. Parliament got unrestrained power whereas the democratic right of the country was challenged.

However the change from&nbsp;&quot;sovereign, democratic republic&quot;&nbsp;to &quot;sovereign socialist secular democratic republic&quot;, is one of the most controversial changes made to the Indian Constitution.&nbsp;

The words socialist and secular is not going down well with many BJP and Hindutva forces.&nbsp;

The BJP bases its argument on the fact that the amendment was passed without any debate as almost all the opposition MPs had been imprisoned during the introduction of the amendment.&nbsp;

The government on Republic Day in 2015 published an advertisement where the Preamble was without the words &quot;secular&quot; and &quot; socialist&quot;.

The advertisement drew a lot of ire from the opposition.

The&nbsp;Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore then defended the move stating that they advertised the picture of the first Preamble used during the adoption of the Constitution.&nbsp;

While Home Minister Rajnath Singh&nbsp;attacked the Congress saying that the BR Ambedkar had never thought the necessity to incorporate it in the Preamble as these two words were part of the Constitution. It is inbuilt in the Indian system.&nbsp;He also said that the two words were the most misused terms of the Indian Constitution and that there have been instances of tension in the society.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut bluntly stated that the word should be removed because the country belongs to Hindu as quoted by The Hindu.

The Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had also called for a debate on whether &quot;secularism&quot; and &quot; socialism&quot; should be included in the Preamble.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The words socialist and secular is not going down well with many BJP and Hindutva forces

The Constitution of India also known as the "Supreme law of India" lays down the framework of the political principles and duties of the government institutions. It establishes constitutional supremacy, overriding parliamentary supremacy. Adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, it came into effect on January 26, 1950. With the adoption of the Constitution, India ceased to be a dominion of the British rule. The adoption of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, made India a "sovereign democratic and republic". However one of the amendments made to the Constitution changed its description from "sovereign, democratic republic " to "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". The Indian Constitution underwent a major amendment during the emergency. The Congress headed by Indira Gandhi enacted the Forty Second amendment, officially known as The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The amendment brought changes to almost all parts of the Constitution. It reduced the power of the Supreme Court and High Court. The political sovereignty was transformed into parliamentary sovereignty. The Prime minister's office was given all the powers. Parliament got unrestrained power whereas the democratic right of the country was challenged. However the change from "sovereign, democratic republic" to "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic", is one of the most controversial changes made to the Indian Constitution. The words socialist and secular is not going down well with many BJP and Hindutva forces. The BJP bases its argument on the fact that the amendment was passed without any debate as almost all the opposition MPs had been imprisoned during the introduction of the amendment. The government on Republic Day in 2015 published an advertisement where the Preamble was without the words "secular" and " socialist". The advertisement drew a lot of ire from the opposition. The Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore then defended the move stating that they advertised the picture of the first Preamble used during the adoption of the Constitution. While Home Minister Rajnath Singh attacked the Congress saying that the BR Ambedkar had never thought the necessity to incorporate it in the Preamble as these two words were part of the Constitution. It is inbuilt in the Indian system. He also said that the two words were the most misused terms of the Indian Constitution and that there have been instances of tension in the society. Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut bluntly stated that the word should be removed because the country belongs to Hindu as quoted by The Hindu. The Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had also called for a debate on whether "secularism" and " socialism" should be included in the Preamble.

The 'secular' and 'socialist' Indian Constitution

secular

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