&w=3840&q=100)
VP Dhankhar calls Emergency-era Preamble changes a 'nasoor', backs review
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday asserted the preamble of a constitution is "not changeable" but was changed in India during the Emergency which signals a betrayal of the "wisdom" of the framers of the Constitution.
He also said the words inserted in the Preamble in 1976 during the period of Emergency, were a "nasoor" (festering wound) and could cause upheaval.
"It is nothing but belittling the civilisational wealth and knowledge of this country for thousands of years. It is a sacrilege of the spirit of Sanatan," the vice president said at a book launch event here.
Dhankhar described preamble as a "seed" on which a constitution grows. He also underlined that the preamble of no other constitution has undergone change except that of India.
"The Preamble of a constitution is not changeable. But this Preamble was changed by the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1976," he said noting that the words "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" were added.
He said it was a travesty of justice that something that cannot be changed was altered "casually, farcically, and with no sense of propriety" and that too during Emergency when several opposition leaders were in jail.
"And in the process, if you deeply reflect, we are giving wings to existential challenges. These words have been added as nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval," Dhankhar cautioned.
"We must reflect," he said, adding that B R Ambedkar did painstaking work on the Constitution and he must have "surely focused on it".
His remarks came after the RSS on Thursday called for reviewing the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution, saying they were included during the Emergency and were never part of the Constitution drafted by Ambedkar.
The Congress and other opposition parties have slammed RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call for a national debate on whether the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' should remain in the Preamble, terming it "political opportunism" and a "deliberate assault" on the soul of the Constitution.
As Hosabale's strong pitch for a review of the two words inserted in the Preamble of the Constitution during the Emergency days (1975-77) kicked up a political row, an article published in an RSS-linked magazine Organiser said it is not about dismantling the Constitution but about restoring its "original spirit", free from the "distortions" of the Congress' Emergency-era policies.
Union minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said that "there is no need for socialism in India" and noted that "secularism is not the core of our culture".
Another Union minister Jitendra Singh sought to defend the call by the second senior most functionary of the RSS, saying any right-thinking citizen will endorse it because everybody knows that these words were not part of the original Constitution written by Ambedkar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
4 death penalties secured, 458 cases fast-tracked in a yr
Lucknow: As part of its 'Operation Conviction' campaign, the Uttar Pradesh govt has secured four death penalties and fast-tracked 458 cases of heinous crimes under the new criminal laws since July 2024. These include death penalties for four criminals in Badaun, Hathras and Kanpur Dehat, life imprisonment for 10, over 20 years' jail for 19, and under 20 years' jail for 425 offenders. Total number of convictions secured in the last two years, since July 2023, has crossed 97,000, officials said. Union home minister Amit Shah hailed UP's legal efficiency at the Central Zonal Council meeting in Varanasi earlier this week and termed it as a model for the country. Director general, prosecution, Deepesh Juneja said swift trials, robust evidence presentation, and video testimony helped fast-track convictions and saved Rs 25 crore through reduced court appearances. "The transformation of UP under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is drawing national and international praise. Since July 1, 2023, due to the govt's zero-tolerance policy on crime, the state's 'Operation Conviction' has secured over 97,185 convictions," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "The swift implementation of three new criminal laws and fast-tracking of 458 key cases since July last year have bolstered this drive. Union home minister Amit Shah lauded these efforts in the recent CZC meeting in Varanasi," Juneja added. "Effective implementation of the three new criminal laws is not only propelling UP towards a crime-free status but also setting an exemplary model for the entire nation. At least 458 heinous cases registered under the new laws have seen convictions. These include death penalty for four criminals, life imprisonment for 10, imprisonment of less than 20 years for 425 offenders, and over 20 years' imprisonment for 19 others," he said. "The prosecution effectively presented evidence and witness testimonies, making full use of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to strengthen and expedite the judicial process. The govt also ensured witness protection, systematic evidence collection, and timely presence in court — all essential elements of a fair trial," he said. "Since July 1, 2024, effective use of digital documentation and witness statements via video conferencing has taken place in the hearing of 25,000 cases across the state. This significantly reduced the need for police and govt witnesses to appear repeatedly in court, resulting in an estimated cost saving of Rs 25 crore for govt," he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Big Beautiful Bill: List of Republicans who will vote against Trump's spending measure
President Donald Trump's tax and spending measure, dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill', will go on the Senate floor on Saturday for debate and a vote. While a majority of Republicans, who hold majorities in Congress, are expected to back the president. However, some have come out publicly to declare that they will vote against the bill, which proposes to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. President Donald Trump said he hopes his Big Beautiful Bill will clear the Senate(AFP) The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin considering the legislation. The timing is, however, uncertain. After the Senate, the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it reaches President Trump's desk. Read More: 'Saved him from ugly death': Trump tears into Khamenei day after his victory speech 'It's evolving,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Friday. Trump was optimistic. His Truth Social post read: 'We can get it done. It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' Under Senate debate rules, it takes a three-fifths majority of lawmakers to pass a bill. If 51 of 100 Senators vote for it, the bill passes by a simple majority. Now, not all Republicans are voting along party lines. Sen Thom Tillis said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen Ron Johnson said he needed to see the final legislative text. Read More: Donald Trump hints at 'very big' trade deal with India after China pact Here's a complete list of Republicans opposing Trump's spending bill Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) Sen Johnson said he opposes the bill due to its insufficient spending cuts and significant contribution to the federal deficit, estimated at $2.3-$4 trillion over a decade by the Congressional Budget Office. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) Sen Tillis objects to the bill's Medicaid cuts, which could affect vulnerable constituents, and the abrupt phaseout of clean energy tax credits, which he argues risks economic disruption. Rep David Valadao (R-CA) The California Republican refuses to support any bill that cuts Medicaid or threatens healthcare access in his Central Valley district, where nearly two-thirds of constituents rely on Medicaid.
