look news india
Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court will next month hear petitions seeking removal of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble of the Constitution. Initially, the court questioned the arguments, saying that these words were in line with the basic spirit of the Constitution. However, the court later said it would hear the petitioners in detail in the week beginning November 18.
In 3 petitions filed in the Supreme Court, it has been said that this word was inserted in the Preamble through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. Emergency was in force then. Opposition leaders were in jail. This word was removed from the Preamble for political reasons without any debate.
The petitioner's lawyer argued that
Petitioner Balram Singh's lawyer Vishnu Jain and petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay also said that the Constituent Assembly had decided after much deliberation that the word secular would not be part of the Preamble. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who was presiding over the two-judge bench, said, 'Don't you want India to become secular? Secularism in India is different from the concept prevalent in France. When the debate was taking place in the Constituent Assembly, it was about a foreign idea. Secularism takes a different form in India. The Supreme Court has also made secularism an integral part of the Constitution in many of its decisions.
Subramaniam Swamy also expressed his views
Also, the third petitioner Subramaniam Swamy said that the court should hear this matter in detail. It should be noted that the Preamble was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949 but was changed in 1976. Even after this amendment, the preamble states that it was accepted on 26 November 1949. The judges agreed that such additions needed to be considered while retaining the old date.
Lawyers gave this argument regarding removing the word socialism
During the hearing it was also raised that socialism is a kind of political ideology. Leaders of every party take oath on the Constitution after becoming public representatives. It is wrong to make every person with every ideology take an oath to be a socialist. On this, Justice Khanna said that instead of a political ideology, socialism can also be seen in such a way that the Constitution gives equal rights to every section of the society.
