Directive principles serve as roadmap to ensure justice: CJI
Delivering a lecture on 'Constitution of India: The contribution of BR Ambedkar' on the occasion of Constitutional Awareness Week at Tagore Auditorium in Osmania University, justice Gavai said Article 32, which empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights, was the heart and soul of the Constitution.
The CJI admitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution were non-enforceable in courts but they served as the moral compass of governance. 'They are not just empty words; they serve as a roadmap for legislators and executives to realise the promise of justice and equality,' he said.
Stating that there was a historical conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, he referred to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, where the Supreme Court clarified that both must work in harmony as twin pillars of constitutional governance.
He described the Constitution as an instrument of social and economic transformation, as envisioned by Ambedkar. 'The Constitution is very dear to my heart,' the CJI said and explained its journey from the Objective Resolution in 1946 to its adoption in 1949. He credited Dr Ambedkar's leadership and intellectual rigour in shaping the foundational document of modern India.
He noted that while the Constitution of India was influenced by global models, it was tailored uniquely to India's needs, creating a single, unified legal framework unlike the dual systems seen in countries like the US. 'Ours is a strong federal structure with one Constitution applicable to all states and citizens,' he said.
Justice Gavai encouraged law graduates to uphold constitutional values and cautioned against pursuing foreign degrees under peer pressure, stressing the need to invest in and strengthen India's legal education system. 'Excellence lies in strong foundations, not just foreign credentials,' he advised.
Speaking on the occasion, justice Sujoy Paul, acting chief justice of Telangana high court, recalled Ambedkar's words that however good the Constitution may be, it can fail if those who implement it are not good. 'Likewise, even a bad Constitution can work well with good people.'
He noted how the Constitution, once criticised as being overly long and rigid, has proven remarkably resilient over 75 years. 'We, the people of India, adopted, enacted, and gave ourselves this Constitution. And we, the people, are also its keepers,' he added.
'Indian legal system badly in need of fixing'
Earlier, delivering the 22nd annual convocation address of the NALSAR University of Law at Shamirpet on the outskirts of Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India said that the Indian legal system has been facing unique challenges and is badly in need of fixing.
'The country and its legal system are facing unique challenges like delays in trials which can sometimes go for decades. In certain cases, someone has been found innocent after spending years in jail as an under trial. It is badly in need of fixing,' he said.
He, however, said he was optimistic that his fellow citizens would rise to the occasion to meet the challenges.
'We must build nurturing academic environments, offer transparent and merit-based opportunities, and most importantly, restore dignity and purpose to legal research and training in India,' the CJI said.
He pointed out that it was not just enough to celebrate India's legal legacy but one must invest in its future, not only in institutions but in imagination, in mentorship programs, research fellowships, local innovation ecosystems and ethical workplaces that make the best minds want to stay or return.
'That future depends on how we treat our researchers, our young faculty and lawyers. Our best talent can help us resolve the problems that we are facing,' he said.
Justice Gavai advised the passing out graduates to seek mentors for the sake of integrity and not for their power.
Telangana chief minister A Revanth Reddy and Supreme Court judge Justice P S Narasimha also participated, while acting Telangana acting CJ justice Sujoy Paul presided.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976
'God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms…', said Friedrich Nietzsche. As many as 66 Constitutions make some reference to God in their Preamble. True, Nehru led from the front in India's adoption of secularism. He explicitly said in his autobiography of how what he called 'organized religion' filled him 'with horror... almost always it seemed to stand for a blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation'. Nehru's strong views on religion did play a significant role in India's choice of secular polity. Unlike today's politicians, he did not need religion to succeed in politics. Though the Supreme Court has said more than once that the term secular in India does not connote either strict separation between religion and state like in France or the non-establishment of religion like in the United States, the debate on the artificial imposition of secularism during the Emergency and the urgent need for its deletion continues though Indian secularism is rooted in Emperor Ashoka's Dhamma and is consistent with noble ideals of India's freedom struggle. Article 51A(b) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen 'to cherish and uphold noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom'. Secularism was one such ideal. Secularism spells autonomy The advocates of Hindutva think that minorities have got some special privileges through secularism and that the time has come to bring an end to neutrality of the state in religious matters. Unfortunately, supporters of a theocratic state do not understand that secularism is basically good for religions as it protects religions from state domination and interference. Religions remain independent and autonomous under secularism. If a religion becomes state religion, the state takes over the control of such religion. Our secularism ensures autonomy of the Hindu religion and the proponents of Hindutva must understand this. Has not Islam been destroyed through various so-called Islamic states? Mahmud Ghazni and Illtutmish defied the caliph and assumed the title of king . Zawabit or state-made laws prevailed over Shariah during medieval India. Did not Henry VIII defy Papal authority just to marry Anne Boleyn and create the Anglican Church with the King as its head. In the consecration of the Ram temple in January 2024, the state's decision prevailed over the theological view of the Shankaracharyas. The state, not religion, decided what is auspicious. Is the salvation of souls really the mandate of a modern state? British Political theorist John Locke in his famous 'A Letter Concerning Toleration' (1689) forcefully said no because the state was brought into existence only for 'procuring, preserving, and advancing' citizens' civil interests. Care of souls, he argued, was not given to the state because the state consists of only outward force while religion consists of the inward persuasion of mind. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, favoured separation of the church from the state to protect the garden of the church from the 'wilderness of secular order'. Secularism could triumph in the 18th century because reason triumphed over religions. While secularism is nothing but an idea of modernity, a non-secular theocratic state is the relic of the past. Even if we are fed up with modernity, the moot question is this: should we become a Saudi Arabia, an Iran or a Pakistan? An overwhelming majority of Hindus do not want to emulate these regressive countries. The importance of the Ashokan edicts Should we reject secularism because this term was not used in the original Constitution? To say that India's Constitution became secular in 1976 is a blatant lie. Like several other things borrowed from Ashoka the Great who ruled from 268-232 BC, the seeds of Indian secularism too can be traced back to Ashokan edicts. Rajeev Bhargava has written extensively on the significance of these edicts. Rejecting the idea of one particular religion as a state religion, Rock Edict 7 said that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. One of the biggest problems of today's India is hate speech. Rock Edict 12 prohibited glorification of one's religion and condemnation of others' religions. Ashoka's dhamma was not religion but the principles of governance, i.e., constitutional morality and ethics that a king must follow. He favoured the acceptance and co-existence of different religions and went beyond mere toleration. The Motilal Nehru Committee's constitution (1928) which was the first attempt to draft the Constitution clearly stated in Clause 4(11) that 'there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in the Commonwealth, nor shall the state either directly or indirectly endow any religion or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status'. The Karachi Resolution of the Congress in 1931 which presented the blueprint of a future Swaraj in Resolution no 2(9), specifically declared that the 'state shall maintain neutrality in regard to all religions'. Even the Hindu Mahasabha's draft constitution of 1944 with V.D. Savarkar's blessings too declared in explicit terms in Article 7(15) that 'there shall be no state religion or either centre or provinces.'. Why do we refuse to follow even Savarkar? On October 17, 1949 when the Preamble of the Constitution was under discussion in the Constituent Assembly, H.V. Kamath proposed that the Preamble should begin with the words 'in the name of God'. We should thank god that in an overwhelmingly religious country, god lost by 17 votes in a tally of 68 to 41. Similarly, the word 'secular' was not specifically included; yet, members, in one voice, spoke of it being a fait accompli of a liberal democratic constitution and consistent with the ideals of our freedom struggle. No member of the Constituent Assembly ever proposed a Hindu Rashtra including Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Three years prior to the insertion of the word secular, the Supreme Court had held secularism to be the basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Silences of the Constitution are equally important. For instance, the words federal, judicial review, rule of law too have not been used in the Constitution. But these ideas have rightly been held as part of the basic structure. On the jurisdiction model If we are really fed up with the separation model of secularism, we should consider the jurisdiction model. We have several options from modern democracies. Certainly, we may declare in the Constitution that Hinduism (not Hindutva) is the dominant spiritual heritage of India — just like in England where the Anglican Church is the official Church of England and the king is the defender of faith but recognises equal rights to all citizens ensuring freedom of religion and prohibiting all discriminations on the basis of religion. The Irish Constitution is another model. Its Preamble begins with the name of the Most Holy Trinity, but the state cannot endow any religion or discriminate on religious grounds. Article 3 of the Greek Constitution declares the Greek Orthodox Church as the dominant religion. The opening words of the Preamble are – 'In the name of Holy, Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity'. But Article 4 talks of the right to equality. Article 5(2) guarantees the right to life, liberty and honour without any discrimination based on religion and gives freedom of religion to all faiths. Muslims of Western Thrace in fact have the right to elect their own Mufti (religious and judicial officer) and their disputes are resolved in accordance with Islamic law. They have an option of either using civil courts or sharia courts. Article 2 of Pakistan's Constitution declares Islam as the state religion. Only a Muslim can occupy high constitutional office. But even the Preamble itself explicitly lays down that the 'adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess, practice freedom of religion and develop their culture'. Moreover Article 36 again says that the state shall safeguard the legitimate rights and the interests of minorities including their due representation in the federal and provincial services. Accordingly, the Constitution makes a provision of reservation for them. Though Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution falls short of declaring Buddhism as state religion, it does give 'Buddhism' the 'foremost place' and places an obligation on the state to protect and foster Buddha Sasna. Of course, it not only guarantees freedom of religion but (unlike India) in Article 10, explicitly gives 'freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice'. Minorities are governed by their personal laws and sharia courts function within the premises of regular courts and High Courts. Our secularism based on Ashoka's Dhamma was designed to allow people to live together in civility and promote equal respect for all religions. The state must remain religion neutral. India's opposition to Pakistan was based on the separation of religion and state. The framers of the Constitution too intended a secular state, and not a theocratic state. Even the Bharatiya Janata Party has been insisting on its opposition to the Congress's negative secularism and used to promise positive secularism. If what was implicit from day one was merely made explicit in 1976, 'Humgama Hai Ku barpa (what is the fuss about')? Faizan Mustafa is a Constitutional Law expert and presently serving as the Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Hindi or Marathi?'; RS-pick Nikam recalls sharing laugh with PM Modi
Mumbai: Advocate Ujjwal Nikam , special public prosecutor in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts and other large terror trials, was on Saturday nominated to the Rajya Sabha as one of the four Presidential nominees. Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke the news to him on Saturday night around 9pm, said Nikam. "I received a call from PM Modi. He began by saying in Marathi, "Mi Marathit Bolu ka Hindi?' (should I speak in Marathi or Hindi?" I laughed a little but he laughed heartily," Nikam smiled while speaking to TOI on Sunday. "I told the PM that he was proficient in both languages and could speak in either, his choice. He spoke to me in Marathi and told me he was conveying the President's wishes to nominate me as Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament to serve the people. " Nikam recalled what the PM said. "President wants to assign a responsibility to you. Can you take on the responsibility? I said let me know what responsibility, to which he replied that the President has taken a decision to nominate you to the Rajya Sabha so you can use your power for the country and constitution. I readily said yes," Nikam relayed. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The PM on Sunday announced the nomination on social media. "Shri Ujjwal Nikam's devotion to the legal field and to our Constitution is exemplary. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Providers are furious: Internet access without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo He has not only been a successful lawyer but also been at the forefront of seeking justice in important cases. During his entire legal career, he has always worked to strengthen Constitutional values and ensure common citizens are always treated with dignity. It's gladdening that the President of India has nominated him to the Rajya Sabha. My best wishes for his Parliamentary innings." Nikam was awarded the Padma Shri in 2016 and was the BJP's candidate for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Mumbai North Central. He lost to Congress's Varsha Gaikwad. "I never felt bad losing the election and was reappointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in several leading cases," said Nikam, saying his dedication to public cause would now continue with the faith reposed in him by the President, PM, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis. He told TOI, "I will work towards upholding the constitutional provisions and strive to bring legal reforms which are needed as even CJI BR Gavai mentioned recently. I will see what changes are needed in extradition laws, since the process relies on our evidence and probe but laws of the other nation in appreciation of the evidence. Besides, Cesar's wife should be above suspicion, and I will work on proposing judicial reforms." Fadnavis said, "...Ujjwal Nikam ji a stalwart in the field of law, has contributed as a exemplary public prosecutor in several high-profile cases..." While ensuring to preserve citizen's faith in the judiciary, Nikam said, "When the various terror trials were on, we were able to get David Headley as witness and could expose Pakistan's role…."
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana quota politics: Congress stakes claim on backward class mandate
Increased reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have been a significant issue for the Congress, with its leader, Rahul Gandhi, frequently citing the Telangana government's approach and vowing to challenge the Supreme Court's 50 percent quota ceiling. The Telangana government passed bills in March to ensure 42 percent reservation for OBCs in education, employment, and local bodies. However, while awaiting the President's nod, the State Cabinet last week also approved an amendment to the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, providing 42 percent reservations for OBCs in local bodies. There are reasons for it. Obvious, of course, is the Congress policy. The other is the recent high court directive to the State government to complete local polls within three months. The question now is whether enforcing the quota, most likely through an ordinance, will get the Governor's approval. Constitutional experts believe otherwise, given the apex court verdicts in the Krishna Murthy vs. Union of India and the Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India cases. The Cabinet's likely push for an ordinance before the local elections signals urgency and a clear political play. At the same time, the state has demonstrated due diligence by establishing a commission to study political backwardness and conducting a survey.
