Amendment of secularism is not constitutional? [PART 3] B.6
Hello everyone,
In this blog, we will be talking about "how the amendment of secularism destroyed the essence of democracy". In the previous blogs, we discussed secularism, its origin, the introduction of secularism in India and much more. Before reading this blog i suggest you to read them first.
Let's GET STARTED,
We all know that India is a democratic and secular country. Any amendment which is made in our constitution should be done in a democratic way or otherwise Constitution of India gives right to every individual of India to challenge that decision in the court. But when the amendment of secularism was made, none of the democratic procedures was followed.
1. The opposition of India was in jail under the MISA Act.
2. Media was censored or in simple words, their right to publish anything without government intervention was blocked.
3. Even the cabinet of Indira Gandhi was not consulted.
4. Courts were silent across the nation.
Do you think of this as a democratic way of making an amendment? The answer is NO. It was totally opposite to the prior. Anybody who raised his voice was behind the bars because "THE STATE OF EMERGENCY" suspends the right of life and liberty of an individual. This was the reality of our nation at that time. Now let's discuss a very important question that whether "THE STATE OF EMERGENCY" is legal? And if yes then in what circumstances?
THE ANSWER IS YES, THIS ACT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL. A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions or impose policies that it would normally not be permitted to undertake. A government can declare such a state during a natural disaster, civil unrest, armed conflict, medical pandemic or epidemic or other bio security risk. But in case of our emergency, none of the above took place. If not these , then what was the reason? On June 12 1975 justice Jagmohan lal sinha of the Allahabad high court ruled on a petition signed by raj narayan, a candidate of the united socialist party from Raebareli. Indira Gandhi was found guilty of misuse of government machinery in the election. There were allegations against her that she bribed voters with liquor, misusing air force plane for the campaign. the election got cancelled and Indira was barred from contesting election for six years and was asked to step down from the post of the prime minister. On Sanjay Gandhi's advice Indira Gandhi appealed in the supreme court against the ruling of the high court. On June 24 1975 the decision of the supreme court allowed her to remain as the prime minister but said that she could not vote as an MP until the final verdict came. Soon after this protest and demonstration began all over the country against her. Seeing the rage of people, Indira Gandhi got the then-president Fakhruddian Ali Ahmed to sign the emergency declaration on midnight of June 25. Under these circumstances to save herself Indira Gandhi called for a state of emergency and told the nation that it was or the national interest. But does this appear like a national interest or a personal agenda to retain her position? Do you think it was lawful and democratic to make an amendment in this crucial situation? Now I leave the decision on the readers.
Now, let's talk about a very fresh and recent protest of CAA and NRC. A huge section of society and media were protesting against it and continuously quoting one specific thing that it is against democracy and constitution of India. Before getting onto this topic, I will be making a detailed blog on CAA and NRC but in this blog, I will be comparing it with the amendment of secularism and we will try to understand how nondemocratic was this amendment.
The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 19 2016, as the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 or CAB. It was referred to the Joint parliamentary committee on 12 August 2016. The Committee submitted its report on 7 January 2019 to Parliament. The Bill was taken into consideration and passed by Lok Sabha on 8 January 2019. It was pending for consideration and passing by the Rajya Sabha. Consequent to the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha, this Bill has lapsed.
After the formation of 17th Lok Sabha, the Union Cabinet cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, on 4 December 2019 for introduction in the parliament. The Bill was introduced in 17th Lok Sabha by the Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah on 9 December 2019 and was passed on 10 December 2019, with 311 MPs voting in favour and 80 against the Bill. The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 11 December 2019 with 125 votes in favour and 105 votes against it. Those voted in favour included Janata Dal (United), AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal, TDP and YSR Congress Party. After receiving approval from the President of India on 12 December 2019, the bill assumed the status of an act. The act came into force on 10 January 2020.
Do you find anything non-Democratic here? The answer is NO, at least the amendment or introduction of this bill, which is "now a law" was not against the law. Nothing will be wrong if I say everything was done in a purely democratic way. But still, voices were raised against this act.
If you like this content please subscribe to my blog and if you haven't read my previous blogs, do go through them. Links provided below.
THANKS FOR READING JAI HIND
https://samarthchakrawartiblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/b5-secularism-part-2.html
https://samarthchakrawartiblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/b4-secularism-part-1.html#more
https://samarthchakrawartiblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/b1-quest-towards-identifying-identity.html
https://samarthchakrawartiblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/b3-what-is-religion.html
Comments
Post a Comment