The Supreme Court will continue hearing the petition challenging the addition of the words “socialist” and “secular” to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution on November 25.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar observed that in SR Bommai case, the Apex Court had adequately addressed the interpretation of secularism, calling secularism a part of the basic structure doctrine.
It further said that the 42nd Amendment had already undergone judicial scrutiny in the past when the Supreme Court examined it on previous occasions. The Bench could not say whether what Parliament did previously was all nullity, it added.
The Bench proceeded to list the matter on November 25 for further hearing.
The top court of the country made the observations, while hearing petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and one Balram Singh.
Earlier in October, the Supreme Court had observed that secularism has been held to be a core feature of the Constitution and that the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution need not be looked at through the western lens.
Upadhyay today argued that the inclusion of these terms through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency was unconstitutional, as the amendment was enacted by the Parliament in extraordinary circumstances, including an extended Lok Sabha tenure. Such changes fundamentally altered the Constitution without the ratification from States, he added.
Advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain and Alakh Alok Srivastava also made submissions today.
Jain submitted that no one could force the people of this country to follow a particular ideology.
The Court responded that no one was doing that at all.
The petitioners added that the terms secularism and socialism were not comprehensively analysed in the Minerva Mills case.
Communist Party of India (CPI) leader and Rajya Sabha member Binoy Viswam opposed the pleas by way of a petition filed through Advocate Sriram Parakkat.
The post appeared first on .
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar observed that in SR Bommai case, the Apex Court had adequately addressed the interpretation of secularism, calling secularism a part of the basic structure doctrine.
It further said that the 42nd Amendment had already undergone judicial scrutiny in the past when the Supreme Court examined it on previous occasions. The Bench could not say whether what Parliament did previously was all nullity, it added.
The Bench proceeded to list the matter on November 25 for further hearing.
The top court of the country made the observations, while hearing petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and one Balram Singh.
Earlier in October, the Supreme Court had observed that secularism has been held to be a core feature of the Constitution and that the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution need not be looked at through the western lens.
Upadhyay today argued that the inclusion of these terms through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency was unconstitutional, as the amendment was enacted by the Parliament in extraordinary circumstances, including an extended Lok Sabha tenure. Such changes fundamentally altered the Constitution without the ratification from States, he added.
Advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain and Alakh Alok Srivastava also made submissions today.
Jain submitted that no one could force the people of this country to follow a particular ideology.
The Court responded that no one was doing that at all.
The petitioners added that the terms secularism and socialism were not comprehensively analysed in the Minerva Mills case.
Communist Party of India (CPI) leader and Rajya Sabha member Binoy Viswam opposed the pleas by way of a petition filed through Advocate Sriram Parakkat.
The post appeared first on .