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

Regional election is being held in Catalonia 99% of the votes had been counted and the pro union socialist party claiming a narrow win. However separatist parties won enough votes in Catalonia's regional parliament to strengthen their majority.

Catalonia Regional election: Socialists win but separatists gain

The head of Spain's centre-right Ciudadanos party quit on Monday after heavy election losses, potentially making his party more amenable to backing a government led by the Socialists.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/spain-votes-in-repeat-general-election-amid-catalonia-tensions-261157">Sunday's election</a> left Spain's parliament even more fragmented than a previous election in April, with the Socialists winning but still short of a majority, and the far-right Vox surging at the expense of the market-friendly Ciudadanos (Citizens).

Ciudadanos, one of the upstart parties that ended the domination of the Socialists and the conservative People's Party (PP), winning its first national seats in 2015, shrank to just 10 seats from 57.

It had billed itself as a new-style liberal, centrist party, but its leader Albert Rivera turned it sharply to the right this year and rejected any form of cooperation with the Socialists.

Rivera said on Monday that his strategy had failed, opening the door for a new leader potentially more open to cooperation.

"It's time to unite Spaniards. The political leaders can divide or look (to)... build bridges," he said in an emotional resignation speech.

Sunday's election was Spain's fourth in four years, and the appearance of new parties has made it ever harder to form a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/spains-far-right-doubles-seats-in-hung-parliament-difficult-talks-ahead-261232">stable government</a>.

Still, senior Socialist official Jose Luis Abalos said the party would try to do so as quickly as possible "because the country needs it", expressing hope that it could take office by December.

He said acting prime minister Pedro Sanchez, the head of the party, was starting to call other party leaders on Monday, and that Ciudadanos had expressed its willingness to help.

Sanchez had gambled on a repeat ballot to break the political deadlock after failing to agree what had seemed a natural alliance with the left-wing Unidas Podemos - which gave up seven seats on Sunday to score 35.

However, the outcome - played out against a secessionist crisis in Catalonia - has left Spain's political landscape even more divided.

The Socialists slipped by three seats, their score of 120 far short of the 176 needed for a majority, even assuming support from Podemos.

Despite a 33 per cent&nbsp;gain to 88 seats by the PP, the Socialists quickly ruled out a "grand coalition" with the conservatives.

Senior PP official Teodoro Garcia Egea told Onda Cero radio on Monday that Sanchez had not even asked his party to offer passive support for a Socialist-led government by abstaining in a confidence vote. "Even if he did, we wouldn't give it to him because we don't trust him," he said.

Abalos ruled out another election, however. The rise of Vox, the first far-right party to get more than one lawmaker since General Francisco's Franco's Fascist regime ended with his death in 1975, may also focus minds on a deal.

To be confirmed as prime minister in a first-round parliamentary vote, Sanchez would need a remote-seeming absolute majority.

But a second-round vote would require only a qualified majority, meaning it could be achieved with the help of abstentions.

The leader of the far-right Vox, which on Sunday became the third-largest by gaining 28 seats for a total of 52, said it would vote against any government led by the Socialists.

Despite Vox's surge, the left-right balance in parliament has changed little from the last parliament.

"No one has won," independent political analyst Miguel-Anxo Murado said. "The best success has been for ... Vox, but this win does not give them any power ... It's not enough for the right-wing bloc to form a government."

The Catalonia crisis also reared its head as some 500 pro-independence <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/catalan-separatists-block-spain-france-highway-261375">protesters blocked </a>an important truck route at the French border.

Organisers said they wanted to "make the Spanish state understand that the only way is to sit down to talk".

Catalonia handed down long prison sentences last month to nine leaders of a failed independence bid, putting the independence drive at the forefront of voters' minds there.

The head of Spain's centre-right Ciudadanos party quit on Monday after heavy election losses, potentially making his party more amenable to backing a government led by the Socialists.

The head of Spain's centre-right Ciudadanos party quit on Monday after heavy election losses, potentially making his party more amenable to backing a government led by the Socialists. Sunday's election left Spain's parliament even more fragmented than a previous election in April, with the Socialists winning but still short of a majority, and the far-right Vox surging at the expense of the market-friendly Ciudadanos (Citizens). Ciudadanos, one of the upstart parties that ended the domination of the Socialists and the conservative People's Party (PP), winning its first national seats in 2015, shrank to just 10 seats from 57. It had billed itself as a new-style liberal, centrist party, but its leader Albert Rivera turned it sharply to the right this year and rejected any form of cooperation with the Socialists. Rivera said on Monday that his strategy had failed, opening the door for a new leader potentially more open to cooperation. "It's time to unite Spaniards. The political leaders can divide or look (to)... build bridges," he said in an emotional resignation speech. Sunday's election was Spain's fourth in four years, and the appearance of new parties has made it ever harder to form a stable government. Still, senior Socialist official Jose Luis Abalos said the party would try to do so as quickly as possible "because the country needs it", expressing hope that it could take office by December. He said acting prime minister Pedro Sanchez, the head of the party, was starting to call other party leaders on Monday, and that Ciudadanos had expressed its willingness to help. Sanchez had gambled on a repeat ballot to break the political deadlock after failing to agree what had seemed a natural alliance with the left-wing Unidas Podemos - which gave up seven seats on Sunday to score 35. However, the outcome - played out against a secessionist crisis in Catalonia - has left Spain's political landscape even more divided. The Socialists slipped by three seats, their score of 120 far short of the 176 needed for a majority, even assuming support from Podemos. Despite a 33 per cent gain to 88 seats by the PP, the Socialists quickly ruled out a "grand coalition" with the conservatives. Senior PP official Teodoro Garcia Egea told Onda Cero radio on Monday that Sanchez had not even asked his party to offer passive support for a Socialist-led government by abstaining in a confidence vote. "Even if he did, we wouldn't give it to him because we don't trust him," he said. Abalos ruled out another election, however. The rise of Vox, the first far-right party to get more than one lawmaker since General Francisco's Franco's Fascist regime ended with his death in 1975, may also focus minds on a deal. To be confirmed as prime minister in a first-round parliamentary vote, Sanchez would need a remote-seeming absolute majority. But a second-round vote would require only a qualified majority, meaning it could be achieved with the help of abstentions. The leader of the far-right Vox, which on Sunday became the third-largest by gaining 28 seats for a total of 52, said it would vote against any government led by the Socialists. Despite Vox's surge, the left-right balance in parliament has changed little from the last parliament. "No one has won," independent political analyst Miguel-Anxo Murado said. "The best success has been for ... Vox, but this win does not give them any power ... It's not enough for the right-wing bloc to form a government." The Catalonia crisis also reared its head as some 500 pro-independence protesters blocked an important truck route at the French border. Organisers said they wanted to "make the Spanish state understand that the only way is to sit down to talk". Catalonia handed down long prison sentences last month to nine leaders of a failed independence bid, putting the independence drive at the forefront of voters' minds there.

Spain's Socialists again seek to rule without majority as Ciudadanos collapses

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

socialist

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