Latest news with #Actof1976
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's secular Constitution, even without the word
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar on Saturday called the Emergency-era addition of expressions 'socialist' and 'secular' to the Constitution's Preamble a 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan'. Leaders such as Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and RSS general secretary Dattareya Hosabale have echoed the VP's critique in recent days. The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. Preamble & 42nd Amendment The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. These were just a few of a whole host of changes made by the 42nd Amendment, which introduced the chapter on Fundamental Duties, added new Directive Principles on State Policy, diluted powers of judicial review, and froze delimitation. Behind these changes These changes reflected Indira Gandhi's political objectives during the Emergency, a 21-month period during which the Prime Minister ruled by decree. * Since the 1950s, the tussle between Parliament and the judiciary had revolved around land reform: the political class saw the Court's upholding of fundamental rights, especially the right to property, as placing individual rights over collective rights of people. With Indira Gandhi taking an explicit leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and romped to victory in Lok Sabha polls later that year with 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') as her campaign slogan — the inclusion of 'socialist' was to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. As the 42nd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons read, the addition was meant to 'make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socioeconomic reforms…'. * The reason for adding 'secular' to the Preamble was not as explicitly spelt out. But it came at a time when the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, was emerging as a potent political force. In the 1967 general elections, the Jana Sangh had won 35 seats, its best performance till then, and the Congress' tally dropped to 283. While the Congress bounced back in 1971, the Jana Sangh nonetheless remained among Indira Gandhi's foremost political opponents through the Emergency, when a number of its leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani were jailed. 'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist… All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira had told Lok Sabha. * The word 'integrity' was brought into the Preamble at a time when Indira's political rhetoric — and justification for imposing the Emergency — centred around 'forces dividing the nation'. 'When we talk of integrity, it is really the quality or the state of being undivided… Whereas a nation is composed of the people and the country, when we talk of the integrity of the country, we talk of… maintaining the indivisibility of the country along with the unity of the nation,' then law Minister H R Gokhale had said in the Parliament while speaking on the Bill. The difference they made While symbolic, the additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. This view has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court. Even before the 42nd amendment altered the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with. 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states. In the 1994 Bommai ruling, that dealt with Centre-State relations, the SC again upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas. 'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice — social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said. In November 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the addition of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Constitution. 'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided [they] did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause … for challenging this constitutional amendment…,' the Bench said. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Express Tribune
03-04-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
PHC annuls 'discriminatory' medicines contract
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has annulled the award of a multimillion rupee medicine supply contract, calling the process "engineered", "discriminatory," and a "quintessential case of mis-procurement". The decision may shake the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) health procurement system. The K-P Health Department had awarded a contract to M/s Frontier Dextrose Ltd for supply of hospital medicines for the fiscal year 20242025. A citizen, Waqar Ahmad, filed a pro bono publico whistle-blower petition through Shumail Ahmad Butt Advocate challenging the legality of the public procurement process. A PHC division bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal set aside the bid awarded to M/s Frontier Dextrose Ltd through an order dated March 25. In its 10-page detailed order, the bench directed the K-P Health Department to cancel the existing award and reinitiate the procurement process strictly in accordance with the law. "We allow this petition and direct respondent No 3 to cancel the bid offered by respondent No 6 for the supply of medicines for the financial year 2024-25 and to reinitiate the process of procurement of the medicines strictly in accordance with the law," it said. The bench noted that the director general drugs and director general health services, who were present in court, were repeatedly asked to explain the rationale behind substituting the contents of an affidavit. The affidavit was to include an undertaking stating: "The undersigned has not manufactured/supplied any batch of Medicine(s), Drugs, Medical Device(s), Surgical Disposable, Cotton, and related goods, etc., that have been declared spurious/adulterated by the DTL (Drug Testing Laboratory) of the K-P or any other public DTL in Pakistan". The order said the said officers were unable to provide any satisfactory response, apart from contending that such an eventuality was addressed under the Act of 1976. "Notably, they neither offered an explanation nor placed any record before the court to demonstrate what necessitated the omission of this essential criterion. "Likewise, it is perplexing that when this lapse was brought to the notice of the procurement authority, it admitted that such an omission should not be repeated in the future and directed that the said clause be reinstated in Bid Form-III (Affidavit). "However, it condoned the omission in the present procurement solely on the ground that no competing bidder had raised an objection during the bidding process. "It must be emphasized that it was not the responsibility of a competing bidder to raise this concern; rather, the authority ought to have sought comments from the procuring entity regarding the justification for the deletion/omission of the said clause," it said. According to the order, upon careful consideration, it became evident that this omission was deliberately made to enable the participation of M/s Frontier Dextrose Ltd in the bidding process. "This constitutes a quintessential case of mis-procurement, rendering the impugned procurement contrary to the public interest," it said. The judgment referred to an Islamabad High Court's (IHC) decision which highlighted ethical obligations of procuring agencies while also condemning any practice that compromises the integrity of the process, including the acceptance of gifts from suppliers. "The cited case-law collectively establishes that public procurement must adhere strictly to principles of transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination, ensuring that public resources are utilized efficiently and equitably. "Thus, under no circumstances can any procurement process funded by public resources be deemed valid if it falls short of integrity, lacks fairness and transparency, is tainted with favoritism and nepotism, or is tailored to benefit a specific individual," it said. The court found that a key clause in the tender documents was deliberately omitted to facilitate the eligibility of one bidder, with no plausible justification on record. "This constitutes a quintessential case of mis-procurement, rendering the impugned procurement contrary to the public interest." Citing a series of landmark judgments from the Supreme Court and high courts across Pakistan, the bench reinforced the constitutional necessity of transparency, fairness, and competition in all public procurement. The court emphasized that public funds cannot be dispensed through tailored or manipulated tendering processes.
