Latest news with #Constitution
India Gazette
30 minutes ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Oppn train guns on RSS over call to remove
New Delhi [India], June 27 (ANI): Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's comments pitching to remove the words 'secular and socialist' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution has sparked massive outrage in the political circle with the opposition leaders and parties labelling it as an 'insult to the Constitution' and an attack on its framers, including Babasaheb Ambedkar. However, BJP leaders and alliance party Shiv Sena came to defend the RSS leader, reiterating their stand that secularism has been imported from the West and represents Western values and not Indian culture. Attacking the RSS, senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused the Sangh of 'never accepting the Constitution'. He claimed that they have targeted framers of the Constitution since its inception for not being 'inspired by Manusmriti'. 'The RSS has NEVER accepted the Constitution of India. It attacked Dr Ambedkar, Nehru, and others involved in its framing from Nov 30, 1949, onwards. In the RSS's own words, the Constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti. The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution. This was Mr Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem,' read a post by the Congress leader on X. KC Venugopal lashed out at Hosabale's statement, claiming that the leader's remarks were an insult to the Constitution, a rejection of its values, and a direct attack on the Supreme Court. 'A senior RSS member surely knows that the Supreme Court declared socialism and secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Yet, to take this stand is a clear insult to the Constitution, a rejection of its values, and a direct attack on the Supreme Court of India as well,' he posted on X. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah cautioned that the call for the removal of the words 'secular and socialist' must not be understood as a 'casual remark' but a 'long-standing agenda' to reshape the country's democracy. He highlighted RSS' persistent opposition to the mention of the terms secularism and socialism in the Constitution, which Siddaramaiah said were the 'core values of the constitution'. He added that it was a part of the long-standing agenda of the Sangh to reshape India's democracy within their ideological purview. 'The RSS has always opposed the core values of our Constitution - secularism and socialism. Now, their leaders are once again saying these words should be removed from the Preamble. This is not a casual remark - it is part of a long-standing agenda to reshape India's democracy in their ideological image,' the Karnataka CM posted on X. Focusing on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the marginalised communities, the Karnataka CM said, 'If not for these constitutional values, people like me would never have had the chance to study, speak, or serve. That is the power of justice, equality, and secularism.' Siddaramaiah explained that the original Preamble didn't include 'secular and socialist' since it was obvious that India would be a socially just democracy, and these terms were added later at a time when the RSS and its affiliates were attacking these values. Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi added to the criticism while stating that RSS intended to violate the rights of the marginalised and the poor while enslaving them. 'The mask of RSS has come off again,' he added. 'RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda,' the Congress leader posed on X. On the other hand, BJP leaders, including Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Union Minister Jitendra Singh, have come in defence of the remarks made by Hosabale, reiterating their argument that secularism was not fundamental to Indian culture and that 'any right-thinking person' would support such a demand as these terms were not part of the original Constitution. 'The basic sentiment of India is equality of all religions... Secularism is not the core of our culture. The word secularism was added (to our culture) during the Emergency. It should be removed... Live and let live is the basic sentiment of India... Therefore, there is no need for socialism here... There is no need for the word socialism (Samajwad) either. The country should think about this,' Chouhan told ANI. Singh emphasised that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added later, through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution during the Emergency, and not by the original drafters. 'Dattatreya Hosabale has stated that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added to our Preamble after the Amendment. Dr Ambedkar has crafted one of the world's finest constitutions. If this was not his thinking, how did someone add these words?' the junior minister added. Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC extended support to Hosabale's suggestion while reiterating that the demand to re-examine the original draft prepared by Dr BR Ambedkar stems from the view that in a republic like India, invoking terms such as 'socialist or pseudo-secular' is no longer necessary. 'The RSS is demanding to look into the original draft of the Preamble by Dr BR Ambedkar, in which there is no mention of these words. And the socialism, secularism, that is actually a symbol of India or a symbol of civilisational ethos, then why was it not in the original draft?' Shaina NC questioned. This development comes after Hosabale questioned the legitimacy of including the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution on Thursday while addressing a program on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency held at Dr Ambedkar International Centre, jointly organised by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (under the Ministry of Culture), Ambedkar International Centre. He remarked that during the Emergency, terms like 'socialism' and 'secular' were forcibly inserted into the Constitution -- a move that needs to be reconsidered today. He emphasised that the Emergency wasn't just a misuse of power but an attempt to crush civil liberties. Millions were imprisoned, and freedom of the press was suppressed. He said that those who imposed the Emergency and trampled the Constitution and democracy have never apologised. If they cannot apologise personally, they should do so on behalf of their ancestors. (ANI)
Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's big Supreme Court win has three significant loopholes
For Donald Trump, it was a 'monumental victory.' For the Trump resistance, there are signs of hope buried in the fine print. Those dueling interpretations emerged Friday in the hours after the Supreme Court issued its blockbuster decision in Trump's challenge to three nationwide injunctions that have blocked his attempt to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born on American soil. And both contain an element of truth. The 6-3 decision has a single headline holding: Federal district judges 'lack authority' to issue 'universal injunctions,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the conservative majority. It's a breathtaking pronouncement given that district judges, with increasing frequency, have been issuing those sorts of injunctions for decades. It was precisely the bottom-line result that Trump's Justice Department asked for in the case. Sweeping injunctions have blocked many of Trump's second-term initiatives, not just his executive order on birthright citizenship. Now, the Supreme Court has made clear, an injunction against a challenged policy should ordinarily apply only to the individuals or organizations who sued. For everyone else, the policy can take effect even if a district judge believes it's likely illegal. But Barrett's 26-page opinion leaves a surprising degree of wiggle room. Yes, conventional nationwide injunctions are off the table, but Trump's opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution. The court appeared to leave open three specific alternatives: Restyle the legal challenges as class-action lawsuits; rely on state-led lawsuits to obtain broad judicial rulings; or challenge certain policies under a federal administrative law that authorizes courts to strike down the actions of executive branch agencies. The viability of these three potential alternatives is not yet clear. But the court explicitly declined to rule them out. That led Justice Samuel Alito — who joined the majority opinion — to write a concurrence to raise concerns that the court was leaving loopholes that could undercut its main holding. If lower courts permit litigants to exploit those loopholes, Alito wrote, 'today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.' Legal experts were unsure about the practical implications of the ruling — especially in the birthright citizenship cases, but also in other challenges to Trump policies. 'One of the things that's problematic about this decision is how difficult it will be to implement,' said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor whose scholarship was cited in the justices' ruling. 'I think it's really hard to say.' The court's decision explicitly left open one avenue for legal challengers to obtain a broad ruling that can apply to thousands or even millions of people: File a class-action case. Class actions allow large groups of similarly situated individuals to band together and sue over a common problem. If a judge sides with class-action challengers against a federal law or policy, the judge can issue a binding order that protects everyone in the class from being subject to the law or policy. Within hours of the court's decision on Friday, one of the groups challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy moved to refashion its case as a class action. But class actions are not a panacea for the Trump resistance. Federal rules require special procedures before a court can 'certify' a class. Litigants seeking to use the class-action mechanism must meet several criteria that don't apply in ordinary lawsuits. And the Supreme Court itself has, in recent years, raised the legal standards for people to bring class actions. Barrett wrote that these heightened requirements underscore the need to limit universal injunctions, which she labeled a 'shortcut' around the stringent standards that accompany class-action suits. 'Why bother with a … class action when the quick fix of a universal injunction is on the table?' she wrote. Alito, in his concurrence Friday, warned district judges not to be overly lax in green-lighting class actions. 'Today's decision will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following' procedural strictures, the conservative justice wrote. A second potential silver lining for Trump's opponents is that the court recognized that states may sometimes be entitled to broader injunctions than individual challengers. Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that district judges are empowered to provide 'complete relief' to litigants who are improperly harmed by government policies. And when states sue the federal government, it's possible, legal experts say, that 'complete relief' requires a sweeping judicial remedy. That remedy might take the form of an injunction that applies everywhere in the suing states. Barrett herself contemplated that it might be proper for lower courts to forbid Trump from applying his executive order on birthright citizenship anywhere within the states that have challenged the order. (About 22 Democratic-led states have done so.) That scenario would create an odd patchwork: Automatic birthright citizenship would apply in half the country but would disappear in the other half until the Supreme Court definitively resolves the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. There is even a chance that 'complete relief' for a state might extend beyond the state's borders and apply nationally — because residents of one state frequently move to another. Still, the bounds of what the court meant by 'complete relief' remain murky. Frost said that it's unclear what an injunction that affords 'complete relief' to a state, while stopping short of a 'universal' or 'nationwide' remedy, would look like. 'I don't know, and that's a problem of the court's own making,' she said. Nonetheless, Democrats like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seized on the 'complete relief' opening, saying it was a reason for optimism and effectively an endorsement of what he and other blue state officials had contended since the start. He and other Democratic attorneys general emphasized that they argued at all levels of the court system the need for nationwide relief in the birthright citizen case — because it would be pure chaos if residents left one state where they were entitled to birthright citizenship and moved to another state where they were not entitled to it, or vice versa. 'As I sit here now, as it relates to states, the court confirmed what we thought all along. Nationwide relief should be limited but is available to states,' Platkin said. Barrett, however, wrote that the court was not taking a firm position on the scope of any injunction the states might be entitled to. 'We decline to take up these arguments,' she wrote, adding that the lower courts should assess them first. The third potential workaround for opponents of Trump policies involves a federal statute known as the Administrative Procedure Act. That law authorizes lower courts to 'set aside' actions by regulatory agencies if the courts find the actions to be arbitrary, rather than based on reasoned analysis. That sort of wholesale judicial relief in some ways resembles a nationwide or 'universal' injunction, but Barrett wrote in a footnote that the court's decision does not address the scope of relief in lawsuits filed under the APA. Some of the lawsuits challenging Trump's policies have been brought under the APA. For instance, a district judge in Rhode Island issued a nationwide injunction against Trump's attempt to freeze vast amounts of federal spending after the judge found that the move would violate the APA. But not all policies are agency actions that would be subject to APA challenges. The birthright citizenship policy, for instance, was promulgated through an executive order, not through any federal agency. On the other hand, the order has a 30-day 'ramp-up period' in which agencies will develop guidelines before implementing the order. Those guidelines might become targets for APA challenges.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court vacates stay on panchayat elections
Observing that the repetition of reservation in seats is minuscule and in compliance with Article 243D of the Constitution, the Uttarakhand High Court vacated the stay on panchayat elections and ordered that the process be resumed. The pleas, which prompted the stay on June 23, were by a clutch of petitioners arguing that the government's decision to nullify the existing reservation rotation for the panchayat polls and bring about a new rotation has prevented them from being able to contest. Under the reservation rotation system, constituencies are reserved for various categories for three terms, after which the quota goes to other seats. With a new rotation starting this year, the petitioner had said a seat that had been reserved for the last three terms would again be reserved this year, preventing him from contesting the election. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra heard the counsel for the government who argued that the repetition was conducted on the recommendations of a report by a committee and was in compliance with the provisions of Article 234 D of the Constitution (pertaining to the reservation of seat in Panchayati Raj system). While arguing, the counsel for the state had relied on the Supreme Court's verdicts on withholding elections. 'The apex court has held that withholding election is a breach of constitutional mandate, for any reason, and even the SC cannot do it, even under article 142. This constitutional mandate that elections should proceed at any cost is inviolable,' the Advocate General had said. On Friday, the HC said that the rulings of the Supreme Court that the counsel relied on elucidated one invariable rule that the constitutional courts may stall the election process where there is no compliance with the constitutional mandate regarding reservation under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Satti Chaura, Massacre Ghat should be declared national monuments'
1 2 Kanpur: Minister of fisheries and national president of the Nishad Party Sanjay Kumar Nishad, stated that this river bank is not just the edge of the Ganga, but is a witness to the sacrifices, bravery, and the first spark of freedom of the country by the Nishad community. "In 1857, Nishad boatmen drowned the British in the Ganga here, shaking the foundations of British rule. In retaliation, hundreds of Nishads were hanged without trial at the Massacre Ghat, and in 1871, the Criminal Tribes Act labelled the Nishad community as 'born criminals,' and humiliated them," said Sanjay Nishad while addressing a gathering in a programme organized in the memory and on the occasion of the Resolution Day of the Nishad community at Satti Chaura Ghat on Friday. Sanjay Nishad said, "Today, we are fighting our battle through the Constitution, pen, and vote to ensure separate reservations for the Nishad community." He demanded that Satti Chaura and Massacre Ghat be declared as national monuments and that the truth about the Criminal Tribes Act be included in school curriculum, emphasizing that Nishad children should learn about their ancestors' bravery to instil pride and prepare future generations for leadership. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Избавляемся от боли в суставах с помощью натуральных средств! Здоровые Суставы Undo The Nishad community leader detailed various welfare schemes initiated by the Central and the state govts for the upliftment of the fishing community, such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana, Mukhya Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana, Fishermen Accident Insurance Scheme, Kisan Credit Card, Intensive Fish Farming Aeration System, Nishad Raj Boat Scheme, Mata Suketa Cage System, and Fish Farmer Welfare Fund. These schemes are being transparently delivered to the community, with pond and reservoir leases being prioritised for the Nishad community, and the government is fully committed to removing illegal encroachments and protecting water resources, he added. Regarding the Etawah Katha Vachak controversy, the minister condemned the incident as highly reprehensible, and said that the Indian Constitution grants all citizens equal rights to perform and conduct religious rituals, and no caste can be deprived of this. When asked about the removal of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Constitution, he remarked that any constitutional amendment requires a parliamentary majority, questioning the basis on which the Congress had added these words during the Emergency when democracy was nearly suspended. He suggested that there should be a debate in Parliament on this issue, and if the words are deemed necessary by it, they should remain; otherwise, they should be removed. "In a democracy, no amendment can be made without collective consent of the people and Parliament," he said.
NBC News
an hour ago
- Politics
- NBC News
What comes next after the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Friday! The weekend is upon us, unless you're a member of the U.S. Senate who's set to spend the next couple days working on the 'big, beautiful bill.' Today also marks the one-year anniversary of the now-infamous presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. In today's edition, our legal team breaks down what comes next after the Supreme Court's major ruling in the birthright citizenship case. Plus, Kristen Welker previews her exclusive interview this weekend with Zohran Mamdani. — Adam Wollner — Adam Wollner Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling sparks new round of legal fights By Lawrence Hurley and Gary Grumbach Almost as soon as the Supreme Court released its ruling limiting the ability of judges to block President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship, challengers brought new legal claims seeking the same result by a different means. While the Supreme Court said judges cannot issue sweeping 'universal injunctions' that can apply nationwide in many cases, it left open the option of plaintiffs seeking broad relief via class action lawsuits. The American Civil Liberties Union filed such a lawsuit in New Hampshire on behalf of immigrants whose children may not obtain U.S. citizenship at birth if Trump's order was to go into effect. In a separate case in Maryland, in which groups had previously obtained a nationwide injunction, lawyers filed an amended complaint seeking similar class-wide relief for anyone affected by Trump's plan within hours of the ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That is at odds with the widely accepted understanding of the Constitution's 14th Amendment — that it grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with a few minor exceptions. Samuel Bray, a critic of nationwide injunctions at Notre Dame Law School whose work was cited in the ruling, said both the states and individual plaintiffs can still get broad injunctions against the birthright citizenship executive order, potentially even on a nationwide basis. 'I don't expect the executive order will ever go into effect,' he added. How Trump is responding: At a news conference, Trump made it clear the administration would proactively use the Supreme Court ruling not just to bolster its birthright citizenship proposal but also to push forward on other policies that have been blocked by judges on a nationwide basis. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' the president said. Steve Bannon urges Republicans to take Zohran Mamdani's rise 'seriously' By Kristen Welker Zohran Mamdani pulled off a stunning upset in New York City's mayoral primary this week, sending shock waves through the Democratic Party. A little-known state lawmaker, Mamdani ran a campaign that energized key Democratic constituencies and ultimately forced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to concede. And now, even Republicans are starting to pay attention. Steve Bannon, a close ally to President Donald Trump, told me the GOP should take Mamdani's rise seriously. 'He did something that AOC and Bernie haven't been able to do — he connected populism to affordability,' Bannon told me. 'Republicans better start taking this guy seriously and they better stop wishing that he wins, and they will automatically run against his policies in 2026. This guy is a very skilled politician. He's clearly had a lot of training. He's got radical ideas, but he presents them in a sunny upbeat way and people feel like he's fighting for them, particularly on an issue that Republicans haven't connected on yet: affordability.' Mamdani has the momentum at the moment, but if elected mayor this fall, he would face immediate questions about whether he and his fellow democratic socialists can effectively govern the nation's largest city. He would oversee a $115 billion budget, more than 300,000 city employees and the country's largest police force. Mamdani has pledged to expand affordable housing, make city buses free and lower the cost of living by raising taxes on large corporations and the top 1% of earners. But his record in Albany offers limited evidence of legislative success: The New York Times reported that only three relatively minor bills he sponsored became law. Delivering on his promises would be difficult. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul — who has said she's not ready to back Mamdani yet — already rejected his proposed tax hikes on the wealthy, and making public buses free would require state approval. So, if given the opportunity to govern, how would Mamdani do it, given these challenges? I'll talk to Mamdani about all of this in an exclusive interview on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday. 🎙️ Here's the Scoop This week, NBC News launched ' Here's the Scoop,' a new evening podcast that brings you a fresh take on the day's top stories in 15 minutes or less. In today's episode, host Yasmin Vossoughian discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in the birthright citizenship case with NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett and senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. ✉️ Mailbag: Is Trump delivering on his deportation promises? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is about Trump's mass deportation agenda. 'The president says they are deporting rapists, drug dealers and child molesters. I was wondering how many of the arrests are of real criminals and how many are just illegal entry workers?' To answer this, we turned to an exclusive report this week from our colleagues Julia Ainsley and Laura Strickler. They obtained internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data of every person booked from Oct. 1 through May 31, part of which was during the Biden administration. It shows a total of 185,042 people arrested and booked into ICE facilities during that time; 65,041 of them have been convicted of crimes. The most common categories of crimes they committed were immigration and traffic offenses. Last fall, ICE told Congress that 13,099 people convicted of homicide and 15,811 people convicted of sexual assault were on its non-detained docket, meaning it knew who they were but did not have them in custody. The new data shows that from Oct. 1 to May 31, ICE arrested 752 people convicted of homicide and 1,693 people convicted of sexual assault, meaning that at the most, the Trump administration has detained only 6% of the undocumented immigrants known to ICE to have been convicted of homicide and 11% of those known to ICE to have been convicted of sexual assault.
