Supreme Court: Socialism Means Commitment To Be A Welfare State; 'Socialist' In Preamble Doesn't Mandate Any Specific Economic Policy

 Similarly, the word 'socialism', in the Indian context should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government of the people's choice at a given time. Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity. India has  consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways. In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).{Para 5}.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No 645 of 2020

Dr Balram Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Another.

Citation: 2024 INSC 893.

Dated: November 25, 2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Inclusion Of Words 'Socialist' & 'Secular' In Constitution's Preamble

The writ petitions do not require detailed adjudication as the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest. Two expressions—'secular' and 'socialist' and the word 'integrity' were inserted in the Preamble vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. These amendments were made in 1976. Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution. The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. This amending power extends to the Preamble. Amendments to the Constitution can be challenged on various grounds, including violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given to themselves by the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not make any difference. The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The retrospectivity argument, if accepted, would equally apply to amendments made to any part of the Constitution, though the power of the Parliament to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged. {Para 2}

3 While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368. In 1949, the term 'secular' was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith. This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. The Preamble's original tenets—equality of status and opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice - social, economic political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, reflect this secular ethos. Article 25 guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, other fundamental rights, and the State's power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices. Article 26 extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law. Furthermore, Article 29

safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens, while Article 30 grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Despite these provisions, Article 44 in the Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.

4. A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution Bench judgments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1 and S R Bommai vs Union of India2, have observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In R C Poudyal v. Union of India3, the Court elucidated that although the term 'secular' was not present in the Constitution before its insertion in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism essentially represents the nation's commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination. In M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India4, this Court elaborated that the expression secularism in the Indian context is a term of the widest possible scope. The State maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights. However, the ‘secular’ nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when they, in the larger public interest impede development and the right to equality. In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme's pattern.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No 645 of 2020

Dr Balram Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Another.

Citation: 2024 INSC 893.

Dated: November 25, 2024.

Print Page

The Women's Reservation Bill, 2023: A Milestone for Gender Representation in India

 The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, commonly known as the Women's Reservation Bill, marks a significant legislative achievement in India aimed at enhancing women's representation in politics. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on September 19, 2023, and passed shortly thereafter, this bill seeks to reserve one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for women. This article explores the key provisions, historical context, and implications of this landmark legislation.

 Key Provisions of the Bill

1. Reservation of Seats: The Act mandates that 33% of the total seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies are reserved for women, including those already reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). This provision aims to ensure greater female participation in legislative processes.

Print Page

Important findings of Supreme court in the judgment of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

 S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President's rule to be imposed over state governments.

Bommai v. Union of India came before the bench of 9 judges (consisting of Kuldip Singh, P. B. Sawant, Katikithala Ramaswamy, S. C. Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, S. R. Pandian, A. M. Ahmadi, J. S. Verma).

The principles laid down by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article 356 of the constitution.

1. The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House.
2. Centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.
3. The court cannot question the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but it can question the material behind the satisfaction of the President. Hence, Judicial Review will involve three questions only:
   a. Is there any material behind the proclamation
   b. Is the material relevant.
   c. Was there any malafide use of power.
4. If there is improper use of Article 356 then the court will provide remedy.
5. Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the president shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament i.e. he shall not dissolve the assembly.
6. Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not administrative machinery

Article 356 shall be used sparingly by the center, otherwise it is likely to destroy the constitutional structure between the center and the states. Even Bhimrao Ambedkar envisaged it to remain a 'dead letter' in the constitution.

Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–state Relations(1988), the Supreme Court in Bommai case (1994) enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.

Imposition of President's Rule in a state would be proper in the following situations:

• Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly.
• Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
• Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
• Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
• Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
• Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.

The imposition of President's Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations:

• Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and the governor recommends imposition of President's Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry.
• Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President's Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.
• Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.
• Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
• Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state.
• Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
• Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the Constitution.

Malafide exercise of Article 356

While dealing with the question as to whether the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 was justiciable all the judges were unanimous in holding that the presidential proclamation was justiciable. The Supreme Court held that the proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The validity of the Proclamation issued by the President under Article 356(1) is judicially reviewable to the extent of examining whether it was issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the material was relevant or whether the Proclamation was issued in the malafide exercise of the power. The Supreme Court or the High court can strike down the proclamation if it is found to be malafide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds. The deletion of Clause (5) by the 44th Amendment Act, removes the cloud on the reviewability of the action. When a prima facie case is made out in the challenge to the Proclamation, the Union of India has to produce the material on the basis of which action was taken. It cannot refuse to do so, if it seeks to defend the action. The court will not go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy. Its inquiry is limited to whether the material was relevant to the action. Even if part of the material is irrelevant, the court cannot interfere so long as there is some material which is relevant to the action taken. It is submitted that the validity of the Presidents proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable.

Powers of President under Article 356

The second question which was taken into consideration by the court was that whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India. It was contended that The Supreme Court in this regard held that the power conferred by Article 356 upon the President is a conditioned power. It is not an absolute power. This satisfaction may be formed on the basis of the report of the Governor or on the basis of other information received by him or both. The existence of relevant material is a pre-condition to the formation of satisfaction. The satisfaction must be formed on relevant material. The dissolution of the Legislative Assembly should be resorted to only when it is necessary for achieving the purposes of the proclamation. The exercise of the power is made subject to approval of the both Houses of Parliament.

Article 74 and justiciability of advice of Council of Ministers to the President

In regard to the contention, that Article 74(2) bars the inquiry into advice which was tendered by Council of Ministers to the President, the Supreme Court at length considered the scope and effect of Article 74(2). Here it would be appropriate to mention that article 74(2) of the constitution provides that the court cannot inquire as to any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Council of Ministers to the President. In this regard Supreme Court held that although Article 74(2) bars judicial review so far as the advice given by the Ministers is concerned, it does not bar scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the advice is given. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered does not become part of the advice. The Courts are justified in probing as to whether there was any material on the basis of which the advice was given, and whether it was relevant for such advice and the President could have acted on it. Hence when the Courts undertake an inquiry into the existence of such material, the prohibition contained in Article 74(2) does not negate their right to know about the factual existence of any such material. This is not to say that the Union Government cannot raise the plea of privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. As and when such privilege against disclosure is claimed, the Courts will examine such claim within the parameters of the said section on its merits. But Article 74(2) as such is no bar to the power of judicial review regarding the material on the basis of which the proclamation is issued.

Invalidation of proclamation

The Supreme Court also held that the power of the court to restore the government to office in case it finds the proclamation to be unconstitutional, it is, in Courts opinion, beyond question. Even in case the proclamation is approved by the Parliament it would be open to the court to restore the State government to its office in case it strikes down the proclamation as unconstitutional. If this power were not conceded to the court, the very power of judicial review would be rendered nugatory and the entire exercise meaningless. If the court cannot grant the relief flowing from the invalidation of the proclamation, it may as well decline to entertain the challenge to the proclamation altogether. For, there is no point in the court entertaining the challenge, examining it, calling upon the Union Government to produce the material on the basis of which the requisite satisfaction was formed and yet not give the relief.

Powers of Parliament

Moreover, the Supreme Court firmly held that there was no reason to make a distinction between the Proclamation so approved and legislation enacted by the Parliament. If the Proclamation is invalid, it does not stand validated merely because it is approved of by the Parliament. The grounds for challenging the validity of the Proclamation may be different from those challenging the validity of legislation. However, that does not make any difference to the vulnerability of the Proclamation on the limited grounds available. And therefore the validity of the Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) can be challenged even after it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3).

Elections to Legislature pending final Disposal of case

Another issue taken into consideration by the Supreme Court was whether any relief can be granted when the validity of proclamation is challenged and whether the court can grant an interim stay against holding the fresh election. In this regard the Court held that the Court will have power by an interim injunction, to restrain the holding of fresh elections to the Legislative Assembly pending the final disposal of the challenge to the validity of the proclamation to avoid the fait accompli and the remedy of judicial review being rendered fruitless.

Secularism

Supreme Court while adjudicating that a State Government cannot follow particular religion discussed at length the concept of Secularism. The Court held that Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Secularism is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. This attitude is described by some as one of neutrality towards religion or as one of benevolent neutrality. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To the state, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. And if the Constitution requires the State to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties as well. The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing religion and State power. Both must be kept apart. That is the constitutional injunction. None can say otherwise so long as this Constitution governs this country. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State government which pursues nonsecular policies or nonsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356. Given the above position, it is clear that if any party or organization seeks to fight the elections on the basis of a plank which has the proximate effect of eroding the secular philosophy of the Constitution would certainly be guilty of following an unconstitutional course of action.

Print Page

Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution and Their Interpretation by the Supreme Court

 The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are a vital component of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51). They serve as guidelines for the State in its quest to establish a just society and promote the welfare of its citizens. While DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced in a court of law, they play a crucial role in shaping policies and laws aimed at achieving socio-economic justice.

 Characteristics of Directive Principles

1. Non-Justiciable Nature: DPSPs are not enforceable by courts, which distinguishes them from Fundamental Rights (FRs). They serve as moral obligations for the State.

2. Guiding Principles: The principles aim to ensure social and economic democracy, guiding the State in policy formulation.

3. Complementary to Fundamental Rights: While FRs protect individual liberties, DPSPs focus on the collective welfare of society.

Print Page

The Dynamics of Indian Federalism: Key Characteristics and Features

 Indian federalism, as established by the Constitution of India, is characterized by a unique blend of federal and unitary features. This structure reflects the historical, social, and political contexts of the country, leading to a system that is often described as "quasi-federal." Below are the key characteristics of Indian federalism:

1) Dual Government Structure

India operates under a dual government system, with powers divided between the central government and state governments. This division is outlined in the Constitution through three distinct lists:

- Union List: Contains subjects on which only the central government can legislate.

- State List: Contains subjects on which only state governments can legislate.

- Concurrent List: Contains subjects where both levels of government can legislate, but central laws prevail in case of conflict

Print Page

LLM Notes: Educational Rights of Minorities Under the Indian Constitution: An Overview

 The educational rights of minorities in India are primarily enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions aim to protect and promote the cultural and educational interests of religious and linguistic minorities, ensuring their ability to establish and manage educational institutions.

 Article 30: Right to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions

Key Provisions:

- Right to Establish Institutions: Article 30(1) grants all minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is fundamental and aims to empower minorities to maintain their cultural identity through education.

Print Page

Inter-state Disputes on Resources in India: Current Status and the Role of the Supreme Court

 Interstate disputes over resources, particularly water, have been a persistent issue in India, reflecting the complexities of federal governance in a country with diverse needs and competing interests. The Indian Constitution provides specific provisions for addressing these disputes, while the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in adjudicating and resolving conflicts. This article discusses the constitutional framework for interstate resource disputes, current statuses of notable disputes, and the Supreme Court's involvement.

 Constitutional Provisions

 Article 131: Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Article 131 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to resolve disputes between:

- The Government of India and one or more states.

- Two or more states.

Print Page

The Right Against Exploitation in the Indian Constitution: A Shield for Human Dignity

The Right Against Exploitation, enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution, serves as a fundamental safeguard against various forms of exploitation, including human trafficking, forced labour, and child labour. This right is crucial for ensuring human dignity, freedom, and social justice in India. It acts as a guardian for individuals, particularly vulnerable populations, protecting them from coercion and dehumanization.

 Constitutional Provisions

 Article 23: Prohibition of Trafficking and Forced Labor

Article 23 explicitly prohibits:

Print Page

Reservation policy as a welfare measure under Indian Constitution

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vdRBHC3h6rxvCSHeESz0CnWToRUU4FNX/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Concept of Panchayat Raj under the Indian Constitution

 Panchayat Raj is a system of local self-government in rural India, established to enhance democratic governance and promote grassroots development. This framework was significantly strengthened by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992, which added Part IX to the Constitution, specifically addressing the structure and functioning of Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs).

Historical Background

Print Page

Administrative tribunals under Indian constitution

 Administrative tribunals are specialized adjudicatory bodies established to resolve disputes related to administrative law, particularly concerning the actions and decisions of government agencies. They serve as an alternative to traditional courts, focusing on specific areas of law and providing a more efficient mechanism for dispute resolution.

Key Features of Administrative Tribunals

1. Quasi-Judicial Nature: Administrative tribunals possess quasi-judicial powers, meaning they can make decisions similar to those made by courts but are not part of the regular judicial system. They are designed to handle specific types of cases, often involving public administration and service matters.

Print Page

What are 'other authorities' under Article 12 of Indian constitution?

 Article 12 of the Indian Constitution provides a broad definition of the term "State" for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights as outlined in Part III of the Constitution. This definition is crucial for determining which entities are subject to judicial review regarding their actions that may infringe upon fundamental rights.

 Definition of "State" under Article 12

Article 12 states that "the State" includes:

1.The Government and Parliament of India: This encompasses both the executive and legislative branches at the national level.

2. The Government and Legislature of each State: This includes state governments and their respective legislative bodies.

Print Page

Right to Education in India: Constitutional Framework

 The Right to Education (RTE) is a significant milestone in Indian law, established as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This right ensures that every child has access to free and compulsory education, specifically targeting children between the ages of 6 and 14 years.

Constitutional Provision

1. 86th Amendment Act (2002): The cornerstone of the RTE is Article 21A, which was inserted into the Constitution through the 86th Amendment. This article states:

    "The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine."

Print Page

Understanding the basic concept of Coalition Government in India

 A coalition government in India arises when multiple political parties collaborate to form a government, typically because no single party achieves a clear majority in the legislature. This arrangement is essential in a parliamentary democracy like India, where the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) comprises 543 members, and a party or coalition needs at least 272 seats to secure a majority.

 Formation of Coalition Governments

Coalition governments can be formed in two primary ways:

- Pre-poll coalitions: Parties come together before elections to present a united front, often with a joint manifesto.

- Post-election coalitions: After elections, parties negotiate to form a government if no party has a clear majority. This type of coalition is more common in India's political landscape.

Print Page

The Doctrine of Protective Discrimination and Its Role in Social Justice: Insights from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

 The concept of protective discrimination, as articulated in Articles 15(4) and 15(5) of the Indian Constitution, plays a crucial role in promoting social justice by providing affirmative action for marginalized communities. This doctrine aims to uplift historically disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), ensuring their representation in education and employment. The landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) significantly shaped this doctrine, clarifying its scope and implementation.

Understanding Protective Discrimination

Protective discrimination refers to policies that provide special privileges to disadvantaged groups to counteract historical injustices. The framers of the Constitution recognized that mere formal equality would not suffice in a society marked by deep-rooted inequalities. Thus, Articles 15(4) and 15(5) were included to allow the State to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

Print Page

The Evolution of Federalism in India: From Competitive to Cooperative

The concept of federalism in India has undergone a significant transformation since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. Initially characterized by competitive federalism, the relationship between the central and state governments has gradually shifted towards cooperative federalism. This article explores this evolution and its implications for governance in India.

Understanding Federalism in India

 Federal Structure

India's Constitution establishes a quasi-federal structure, where the term "federal" is not explicitly mentioned. Instead, it embodies a system of governance that shares powers between the Union and the states. The Seventh Schedule delineates subjects on which both levels of government can legislate, facilitating a cooperative approach to governance.

Print Page

The Election Commission of India: Guardian of Democracy and Free Elections

 The Election Commission of India (ECI) stands as a pivotal institution in the Indian democratic framework, tasked with ensuring that elections are conducted in a free, fair, and impartial manner. Established under the Constitution of India, the ECI plays a critical role in upholding democratic values and maintaining public trust in the electoral process.

 Constitutional Foundations of the Election Commission

The ECI's authority is primarily derived from Article 324  of the Indian Constitution, which empowers it to oversee elections for the Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President. This article grants the commission broad powers to enforce electoral laws and maintain integrity during elections.

Print Page

What is concept of state under article 12 of Indian Constitution. Is there any need for widening its definition in the wake of liberalization?

 Article 12 of the Indian Constitution plays a crucial role in defining the term "State" for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights. This definition is pivotal as it determines which entities can be held accountable for violations of these rights, which are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

Definition of State Under Article 12

Article 12 states that:

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

Print Page

Understanding India’s Constitutional Provisions for Creating New States

India, a vast and diverse nation, is home to a multitude of cultures, languages, and traditions. The Constitution of India provides a robust framework for governance, including specific provisions for the creation of new states. This blog post delves into the constitutional articles that govern the formation of new states and alterations to existing state boundaries.

The Constitutional Framework

The creation of new states in India is primarily governed by Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution. These articles outline the powers of Parliament and the processes involved in state formation and boundary alterations.

Print Page