Secular, socialist like 'ulcers' in Preamble: VP backs review call

Two days after the ruling BJP's ideological mentor Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh suggested a review of the words "secular and socialist" in the Preamble of the Constitution, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar lent his weight to the call and said the twin expressions militate against Indian principles and were like "ulcers”.

Advertisement

Questioning these additions through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution at the height of the Emergency imposed by late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Dhankhar said the Preamble was its soul and could not be altered.

The Vice-President copiously quoted from famous judgments, including Kesavananda Bharati and Golaknath, to argue that the Preamble was the foundation upon which the Constitution stood.

"Except Bharat, no other Constitution’s Preamble has undergone a change. Why? Because the Preamble is not changeable, not alterable. A change in the Preamble means a change in the soul of the Constitution," Dhankhar said at VP Enclave today after the presentation to him of the book ‘Ambedkar’s Messages’ compiled by former Karnataka MLC DS Veeraiah.

Dhankhar said the worst part was the timing of these additions when all civil liberties were suspended and the country converted into one big jail.

“The words were added during the darkest period of the Emergency, the darkest period for the Constitution. And by adding these words, we gave wings to existential challenges. These words have been added as ‘nasoor’ (festering wounds and ulcers). These words will create upheaval. Addition of these words signals a betrayal of the framers of the Constitution. This is nothing but belittling our civilizational wealth... It is sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana,” the Vice-President said.

On June 26, speaking at an event to commemorate 50 years of Emergency (imposed on June 25, 1975), RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale recommended a review of the words "secular and socialist", a move the Congress termed as "anti-Constitution”.

Dhankhar, to make his point, referred to Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established the "basic structure doctrine" of the Constitution.

"In the Kesavananda Bharati case, celebrated judge Justice HR Khanna said the Preamble serves as a guide to the interpretation of the Constitution and indicates the source from which the Constitution derives its authority--namely the people of India. Dr BR Ambedkar, who did painstaking work, would have surely focused on the Preamble. The founding fathers thought it fit to give us that Preamble. But devastatingly, the change was made when people were virtually enslaved," the V-P said, advocating revisiting the terms in the Preamble.

Dhankhar further quoted Justice SM Sikri, also part of the 13 judge Bench, which delivered the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. "Justice Sikri said that the Preamble is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble. But this vision was tampered with. The Preamble crafted by the genius of Dr BR Ambedkar and approved by the Constituent Assembly should have been respected rather than tweaked, altered and decimated. The change militates against our civilizational ethos of thousands of years, where Sanatan philosophy--its spirit and essence--dominated the discourse," the VP said.

Another judge Dhankhar quoted to make the case that the Preamble could not be altered was Justice Hidayatullah who in the Golaknath versus State of Punjab case said, "The Preamble contains in a nutshell the ideals and aspirations of the Constitution. It is not a mere flourish of words, but embodies the objectives which the Constitution seeks to achieve." The Golaknath case, decided in 1967, altered the understanding of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. Ruling that the Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights, the SC stated that such amendments would be considered law under Article 13 of the Constitution and would be subject to judicial review.