No plan to remove 'socialism', 'secularism,' says Centre
The House was also told that the government has not 'formally' initiated any legal or constitutional process to remove the two words from the Preamble of the Constitution. In a written reply, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said while there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles, 'no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government' regarding amendments to these terms.
"The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution. Any discussions regarding amendments to the Preamble would require thorough deliberation and broad consensus, but as of now, the government has not initiated any formal process to change these provisions," the minister asserted.
He pointed out that in November 2024, the Supreme Court had also dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment (42nd Constitutional Amendment), which affirmed that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble. The court clarified that 'socialism' in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not impede private sector growth, while 'secularism' is integral to the Constitution's basic structure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct, says he moved the apex court only after in-house inquiry results became ‘unpalatable'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) questioned the conduct of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, saying he had moved the Supreme Court against the in-house inquiry procedure initiated by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna only after the outcome of the probe had become 'unpalatable' for him. The report of an in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed the presence of 'burnt currency' in a gutted outhouse at Justice Varma's residential premises in New Delhi after a fire in mid-March. The in-house inquiry, appointed by the then Chief Justice Khanna, had recommended his removal. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister in May, seconding the recommendation of the inquiry panel. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih said the in-house procedure was carefully devised through multiple Supreme Court judgments as a mechanism to preserve the institutional integrity and moral vigour of the judiciary. Article 141 of the Constitution made apex court judgments binding on all. Justice Datta said the in-house procedure had been in existence for over 30 years now. Every High Court or Supreme Court judge, including Justice Varma, knew since the time of taking the oath of office that she or he would be subject to a probe if the situation called for it. The Chief Justice of India was not a 'post office' to blindly pass on complaints or allegations to the Parliament, Justice Datta said. The Bench explained the in-house procedure was meant to fill a 'yawning gap'. It was a procedure in which a CJI-appointed committee held a preliminary inquiry into the allegations in order for the CJI to take an informed decision, and if required, recommend the removal of a judge. The Bench said Justice Varma, having once submitted to the jurisdiction of the in-house panel, could not turn back and call it 'illegal'. 'Once the High Court judge has submitted to the in-house inquiry procedure, he has to accept the outcome. His conduct does not inspire. He has challenged the procedure once the outcome became unpalatable,' Justice Datta said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said if the in-house procedure was so sacrosanct, what was the need for a motion in the Parliament. The former alone would suffice to remove a judge. He argued Articles 124 (4) and (5), and Article 218 provided a complete mechanism for removal of a judge. 'Any other mechanism is outside the Constitution,' Mr. Sibal said. He urged the point that Justice Varma had no other place except the Supreme Court to challenge the in-house inquiry and the recommendation to remove him. 'The High Court judge cannot challenge the in-house inquiry report, which has triggered the removal motion, in the Parliament. That is why I have come to the Supreme Court now,' Mr. Sibal submitted on behalf of Justice Varma. He contended that the in-house inquiry process was only an 'informal, administrative exercise' with no strict or codified standards of evidence, unlike the probe under the Judges Inquiry Act. 'Yet, the in-house inquiry report and the CJI's recommendation for removal has sounded the death-knell… become a trigger and a prompt for the removal of the High Court judge. It is evident that the report and the recommendation of the CJI has more than a persuasive value as the Parliament has already commenced his removal motion,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer said the CJI had only a moral and ethical power over other judges. He could not embark on a probe against a judge and recommend the latter's removal. However, Justice Datta referred Mr. Sibal to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3(2) provided the Centre, State, Supreme Court, a High Court or any other other authority 'to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a judge'. Justice Datta asked whether in-house procedure would come under the ambit of 'otherwise' in the provision. 'If so, the CJI has not only moral and ethical but also legal power too,' Justice Datta observed. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also on behalf of Justice Varma, said that in earlier cases of in-house procedure, the judge in question was given an opportunity to present his views before and after the in-house inquiry report. But this had not been followed in the current case. The Bench reserved judgment on the petition challenging the validity of the in-house procedure against Justice Varma, and the subsequent recommendation of Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) to remove him. The court also reserved a decision on advocate Mathews Nedumpara's petition seeking registration of a criminal case against the High Court judge. Justice Datta had asked Mr. Nedumpara whether he had even filed a complaint before the police for the registration of a First Information Report.
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
'Atrocious, shocking': Congress slams Jaishankar over Nehru, Indus Waters Treaty remark
The Congress party has strongly criticized External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's remarks, labeling them as "atrocious." Jaishankar accused Jawaharlal Nehru of appeasement through the Indus Waters Treaty. Jairam Ramesh countered, highlighting the treaty's benefits to India, including the Bhakra Nangal dam and Rajasthan Canal, while accusing Jaishankar of abandoning professionalism. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Congress on Wednesday termed as "atrocious" External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's remarks calling the Indus Waters Treaty appeasement by India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and said the minister showed that he has long given up the slightest pretence of being a Congress' attack on Jaishankar came after his speech in Rajya Sabha while intervening in the special discussion on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam his remarks, Jaishankar said the Narendra Modi government has corrected the wrongs of Nehru's policies by suspending the Indus Waters treaty signed by Nehru was not to buy peace but for appeasement, the minister back at Jaishankar, Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said, "Once upon a time the External Affairs Minister was known as a professional. Today he showed that he has long given up the slightest pretence of being one. His remarks on Nehru and the Indus Waters Treaty in the Rajya Sabha today were, to put it mildly, absolutely shocking."Jaishanker deliberately did not mention that without the three eastern rivers -- Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi -- being exclusively with India the Bhakra Nangal dam complex, key to the Green Revolution, would not have become a reality, he the three eastern rivers being exclusively with India the transformative and long Rajasthan Canal would not have been possible and the Ravi-Beas link would not have been possible, Ramesh argued."Even on the Chenab and Jhelum, India has already implemented a number of hydel projects like Baglihar, Salal, Dul Hasti, Uri, and Kishenganga. A number of other projects are under execution. In June 2011, at the initiative of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Chenab Valley Power Projects Private Ltd was incorporated," the Congress leader said."It is true that Pakistan has obstructed the utilisation of what India is legally entitled to on the Chenab and Jhelum. But to call the Indus Waters Treaty communal appeasement by India's first Prime Minister - as the EAM did today - was simply atrocious," Ramesh said.
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Around 489 road projects face delays over land and clearance issues: Nitin Gadkari
Numerous road projects, initially slated for completion by March 2025, face delays due to land acquisition hurdles and pending clearances. The government is actively collaborating with states and stakeholders to resolve these issues. Cost overruns have occurred due to increased compensation, price escalation, and design changes, leading to contract terminations and re-awarding in some cases. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As many as 489 road projects , which were originally scheduled for completion by March 2025, are pending due to delays in land acquisition , forest/wildlife clearances and railway approvals, Parliament was informed on Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari , in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, said the government is making all efforts to resolve the pending issues in close coordination with state governments and other stakeholders to complete these said cost overrun has been incurred in some of the delayed projects due to various factors like enhanced cost of compensation for land and structures, price escalation, Goods & Services Tax (GST) impact, additional VUPs/PUPs on public demand or otherwise, change in General Arrangement Drawing (GAD)/design for Road Over Bridges/Road Under Bridges (ROBs/RUBs) to meet the Railway standards, projects are inordinately delayed due to some reasons and further progress under the ongoing contract is not envisaged, the contract is terminated/foreclosed and re-awarded, with or without modification in the project configuration, he to a separate question, Gadkari said national highways are constructed in accordance with specifications of Indian Road Congress (IRC)."The maximum design speed specified for construction of national highways in different terrains is 120 km/h for expressways and 100 km/h for national highways," he said.
