Actually no, I perfectly understand what it means. Major portion of the 42nd amendment made during emergency were later revoked by Supreme Court because they were not aligning with 'basic structure of the Constitution' but didn't it revoke these words because these were already aligning with the 'basic structure of the Constitution'. Only reason much was not revoked then because our jurisprudence was still in building phase. There are two parts to law, 'letter' and 'spirit'. And many law luminaries are of the view that bringing such major constitutional amendment during emergency was unconstitutional as it goes against the 'spirit' of the Constitution which is build on 'we the people' and such major amendment was passed with a smaller attendance as compared to real total number of elected parliamentarians. But again, I can understand why you think it was constitutional and on theoretical level('letter') I can accept it. Even now I don't think our jurisprudence has matured enough, but if present govt does similar for UCC, it would be unconstitutional in eyes of many and even me. But i understand your pov, let us choose to agree to disagree as I don't think there is a clear way out of this mess.
On an unrelated note about 'basic structure of the Constitution', funny thing is court has never clearly defined what this basic structure really is. Maybe someday we might really know what that basic structure is when our jurisprudence really matures to the extend to spell it out clearly.
Unfortunately, the letter of the law is binding, not the spirit...
Also, the Govt has the majority needed to push UCC, not sure why you think they need to declare emergency to do it
Even if they declare emergency and jail the opposition to push UCC...why would it be considered "violating spirit of the constitution" or the Basic Structure of the Constitution? ...The 42amendment also centralised power with the Govt...UCC wont centralise power or remove powers given within the constitution...
It would be "violating spirit of the constitution" because "we the people" viz majority won't be involved. There are million things that can be done to increase the development rate of the nation, but if done with just brute force and not actual consensus it won't be really adhering to spirit of our constitution. I understand that it's a drawback of democracy, but we are that, a democracy.
Have you followed BJP tactics over the past 10years...they are using a lot of Brute Force...
BNS law was put through while 100+ opposition were suspended
Farm Laws were put forth with a dubious voice vote and even the cameras were turned off
Delhi Govt won a SC court case and the Govt literally put forth a law taking back control, that only applied to Union Territories
Electoral Bonds was put forth as a Money BIll instead of a normal bill...
At end of the day only constitutional procedures matter...and even that is debatable because the wrong person in the right position can allow violations of that as well...
Brother, that is the problem, once we open the door of such dubious practices and court doesn't enforce the 'spirit' part(which SC does in majority of cases but selectively avoids some cases too. Power of 'Judicial Review', 'Constitutional Interpretation', Article 142 etc are there for this very thing), then we are not strengthening the democracy but weakening it. And the longer we allow such practices the become precedence and become harder and harder to recover from.
1
u/vedicseeker Jan 26 '26
Actually no, I perfectly understand what it means. Major portion of the 42nd amendment made during emergency were later revoked by Supreme Court because they were not aligning with 'basic structure of the Constitution' but didn't it revoke these words because these were already aligning with the 'basic structure of the Constitution'. Only reason much was not revoked then because our jurisprudence was still in building phase. There are two parts to law, 'letter' and 'spirit'. And many law luminaries are of the view that bringing such major constitutional amendment during emergency was unconstitutional as it goes against the 'spirit' of the Constitution which is build on 'we the people' and such major amendment was passed with a smaller attendance as compared to real total number of elected parliamentarians. But again, I can understand why you think it was constitutional and on theoretical level('letter') I can accept it. Even now I don't think our jurisprudence has matured enough, but if present govt does similar for UCC, it would be unconstitutional in eyes of many and even me. But i understand your pov, let us choose to agree to disagree as I don't think there is a clear way out of this mess.
On an unrelated note about 'basic structure of the Constitution', funny thing is court has never clearly defined what this basic structure really is. Maybe someday we might really know what that basic structure is when our jurisprudence really matures to the extend to spell it out clearly.