Introduction:
The principles of the Indian Constitution are decided by the various committees of the Constituent Assembly. Preamble being one of the main and very important parts of our constitution was drafted by the members of the constituent assembly following several debates and discussions during the last session. The preamble to the Indian Constitution gives you an inside about the goals of a Constitution and it further seeks to establish the ideals which are in the best interest of the general public.
The preamble is an introduction to the statutes, or an introduction to the constitution, which is a declaration issued by the legislature with the goal of passing the statute and is useful in interpreting any statute. It describes all aspects of human life that are necessary for a person to exist in society with dignity and reputation.
Debates
The preamble was debated at the assembly’s last session. Maulana Hasrat Mohani, K.M. Munshi, H.V. Kamath, Purnima Banerji, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, and Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena were among those who took part in the argument. During the conversation, there were a number of discussions and arguments.
Prof K.T Shah
He debated in favor of inserting the word “Secular, Federal, Socialist” in the Preamble. According to him, the insertion of these words in the preamble will help in governing the ideals of the Constitution. The word “Federal” means an agreed association on equal terms of the states forming part of the Federation.
He further focused on the secular character of the state by observing the past experiences of the country. He advocated that the insertion of the word “secular” will give an assurance to the general public for matters concerning the governance of the country pertaining to injustice or inequality among citizens.
According to him, “socialist” refers to a state in which everyone receives equal justice and equal opportunity by offering their labor, intelligence, and work to the best of their abilities. In exchange, people can expect a reasonable civilized level of living.
Dr. B.R Ambedkar
He rejected the proposal of Prof K.T Shah by stating that We cannot make India a socialist country because the social and economic policies of a country are to be decided by the people only according to the time and circumstances. If it is included in the preamble then the essence of democracy and liberty will altogether be destroyed as people won’t be able to decide what they want. The majority of people nowadays can easily believe that the socialist organization of society is superior to the capitalist organization of society. However, it would be quite possible for intelligent people to design a new kind of social organization that would be superior to the socialist organization of today or tomorrow.”[1]
According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Prof. Shah does not appear to have taken into account the fact that, in addition to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Assembly has also inserted additional parts dealing with directive principles of state policy. If Mr. Shah reads the Articles in Part IV, he will see that the Constitution has imposed certain definite obligations on both the Legislature and the Executive in terms of the structure of their policy.
Mr. H.V Kamath
The proposal of Mr. K.T Shah was accepted by Mr. H.V. Kamath.
He rises in favor of Professor Shah’s amendment. He believes it is important for them to clarify the status of the States, given that the House has refused to accept the qualifying word ‘federal’ for the phrase Union. As Mr. Shah pointed out, provinces, states, or chief commissioners’ provinces are not all created equal. As a result, it is critical that we describe the connection or status of the States as between themselves for the sake of clarity, correctness, and precision in constitutional terms. As a result, Professor Shah’s change is extremely appropriate. There should not be a state that is superior to another in a federally structured Constitution. There should be no state that may be referred to as primus inter pares or first among equals.[2] We must define that all states should be equal among themselves. All states should be on an equal footing with one another. If there is a superior state, government, or mechanism, it is the Union Government’s mechanism. He also proposed the Preamble should begin with: “In the name of God, We, the people of India…”
“Let us consecrate this Constitution by a solemn dedication to God in the spirit of the Gita: Yatkaroshi yadashnasi Yajjuhoshi dadasi yat Yattapasyasi kaunteya Tatkurushwa madarpanam.”[3]
Thirumala Rao
Whether India wants God or not, the amendment should not be put to a vote in a House of 300 people. He further added that God should be mentioned in the Oath, but there is an option for those who do not believe in God; yet, there is no way to achieve a compromise that addresses both aspects of the Preamble.
Shibban Lal Saksena
He proposed that the Preamble read: “In the name of God the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation from slavery to freedom, by unique adherence to the eternal principles of Satya and Ahimsa, and who sustained millions of our countrymen and the Nation’s martyrs.”
Brajeshwar Prasad
He opposed the arguments of Shibban Lal Saksena. He does not want Mahatma Gandhi’s name to be included in the Constitution because it is not a Gandhian Constitution. The rulings of the United States Supreme Court are the cornerstones of this Constitution. It’s the 1935 Government of India Act all over again.
He went on to say that the word “secular” should “be inserted in our Preamble because it will boost minorities’ morale…” In addition, he wanted the word “Socialist” in the Preamble. He opposed “any undue emphasis on the word sovereignty” because “sovereignty leads to war; sovereignty leads to imperialism,”. His amendment was rejected.
Govind Malaviya
He had given proposed an amendment, which ran: “By the mercy of Parameshwar, the Supreme Being and Lord of the Universe,” says the narrator (called by different names by different peoples of the world). Whom all that is good and wise flows from, and who is the ultimate source of all authority, We, the people of Bharata (India), humbly confessing our devotion to Him, gratefully remembering our great leader Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the many sons and daughters of our land who have toiled, battled, and suffered for our freedom…”
When BR Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, democratic, republic,” Maulana Hasrat Mohani, a leader of the Indian National Congress as well as a prominent Urdu poet and the one who developed the motto Inquilab Zindabad, was against the proposal of Dr. BR Ambedkar.
According to him, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru’s Objectives Resolution had three words: Independent Sovereign Republic. However, the Drafting Committee chose the phrase the Sovereign Democratic Republic because the word “Sovereign” normally implies independence. Before considering the Draft Constitution clause by clause, he asked the Constituent Assembly to decide on the following three sets of words to be included in the Preamble. Sovereign Democratic Republic, Sovereign Democratic State, Sovereign Independent Republic.” The name ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ was chosen after much discussion. B.R. Ambedkar has the final say in this discussion. The Constituent Assembly passed an amendment on November 15, 1948, to include the words secular and socialist in the Constitution. He rejected that idea as unnecessary.
Case Laws
The subject of whether the Preamble is part of the Constitution has come up several times. In response to this question, two cases provided contradictory responses:
Berubari Case[4]
It was decided that the Constitution’s Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. Even while the preamble serves as an introduction to the constitution and is, without a doubt, a concept that opens the minds of the makers and aids them in the creation of a constitution, the eight-judge bench in this case concluded that the preamble is not a part of the constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati Case[5]
The Kesavananda Bharati case overturned the Berubari decision, ruling that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. It overturned the Berubari judgment from 1966, which held that the Preamble was not a component of the Constitution. It also claimed that Parliament might alter any provision of the Constitution as long as it did not contradict the Constitution’s basic structure. According to Article 368 of the Constitution (42nd Constitutional Amendment), the Preamble was altered to include the words “Secular,” “Socialist,” and Integrity.” This case introduces a new chapter in the history of the constitution, as the thirteen-judge bench ruled that the preamble is included in the constitution as:
The preamble serves as the constitution’s introduction.
The preamble is not a source of authority, but it did play a significant part in interpreting the statutes.
Further Amendment
The words “Secularism,” “Socialism,” and “and Integrity” were not included in the first version of the Preamble. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued during the debates that the term “secular” was unnecessary because the entire Constitution incorporated the concept of a secular state, which meant no discrimination based on religion and equal rights and status for all people. In response to the inclusion of the term “socialist,” he stated that deciding what kind of society the people of India should live in through the Constitution goes against the fundamental spirit of democracy. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, however, reintroduced the two phrases in the 42nd Constitution Amendment of 1976 for political reasons.
Nehru had stated in the debate on Objectives Resolution[6] the original source of the Preamble, that it would not be included in the Constitution. However, as previously stated, before submitting the drafted Preamble to the Constituent Assembly for a vote, the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, raised the subject of whether the Preamble should be considered part of the Constitution.
Conclusion
Apart from being a secular, federal, and socialist country, the founders of the Indian Constitution desired India to be a sovereign, independent, and democratic republic from the beginning. They wanted India to be a fully democratic republic that cherished all of the democratic republic’s core values, characteristics, and components. The fundamental qualities of a democratic republic have been particularly stated. They believed that material resources should be distributed for the common welfare. They didn’t want wealth to be concentrated in any way. They wished for a more equitable distribution of production resources.
There were a number of other amendments moved, discussed and negatived, or sought to be moved by various members. The Preamble to the Constitution of India was finalized following deep discussions by the members. Each and everything was discussed in detail.
References:
[1]Constituent Assembly of India Debates volume vii ( Aug. 16 2021, 5:45PM) http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C15111948.html.
[2] constituent assembly of india debates (proceedings)- volume vii http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C15111948.html.
[3] Constituent assembly debates official report, https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762996/1/cad_04-11-1948.pdf
[4] In re Berubari case,AIR 1960 SC 845.
[5] Keshvananda bharti v state of Kerala,Writ Petition (civil) 135 of 1970
[6] (Constituent Assembly Debates Vol.1), ( 17 Aug. 2021,9:45PM) http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/vol1.html.
0 Comments