Article 370 was against Ambedkar's ideology of one Constitution: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday said that BR Ambedkar envisioned one Constitution to keep the country united and never favoured the idea of a separate Constitution for any state, PTI reported.
Justice Gavai said that the Supreme Court drew inspiration from Ambedkar's vision of a united India when it upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370 in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court, with Justice Gavai as a member of the five-judge Constitution bench, upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
'When the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country,' Justice Gavai said while addressing a gathering at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in New Delhi. 'If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution.'
The Chief Justice of India added that Ambedkar had faced criticism, with some people saying that the Constitution's strong federalism might compromise national unity, especially during wartime.
Ambedkar had then responded to his critics that the Constitution would suit all the challenges and keep the nation united, PTI quoted Justice Gavai as saying.
'See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka,' he added. 'Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
First task for Madhya Pradesh minister who stirred Col Qureshi row: Tackle eviction fallout in wildlife sanctuary
In his first public assignment since triggering outrage with his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Kunwar Vijay Shah has been deputed to Dewas by CM Mohan Yadav to assess the fallout of a controversial eviction drive inside the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary. Shah, who is now being investigated by a Supreme Court-ordered SIT, comprising senior police officers from the state, has been absent from the public eye after an FIR was registered against him for his comments referring to Colonel Qureshi as 'the sister of terrorists' during a public meeting in Mhow on May 11. Later, Shah had apologised thrice and was pulled up by the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Meanwhile, there has been unrest across Khategaon tehsil after the the Forest Department cleared on June 23, what it described as 'illegal encroachments', over 82 hectares of sanctuary land, demolishing kachha dwellings and houses reportedly built by tribal families. Officials claimed due process was followed, including the issuance of notices a month in advance. Tribal rights groups and political leaders have planned protests over the issue. Chief Minister Mohan Yadav said, 'Referring to an incident involving Forest Department action in the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary area of Dewas, Minister for Tribal Affairs Shri Kunwar Vijay Shah has been directed to visit the site, assess the situation, and ensure every possible help is extended to the affected families.' Yadav said that the 'Forest Department has also been instructed to avoid any action that may cause inconvenience to people during the monsoon season. All welfare schemes in the state are being implemented following due procedure and ensuring that benefits reach the genuinely needy.' A demonstration had been planned on June 27, and another on June 29 by Jai Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS). According to district officials, approximately 50 families are supposed to receive `20,000 each as compensation, along with a six-month ration supply and one month of cooked meals. Apart from this, housing scheme benefits and construction of a new road in the area were also promised. While tribal communities protested what they called 'arbitrary displacement', several Eco Development Committees held a counter-rally supporting the Forest Department, saying that their livelihoods depended on forest produce like mahua and tendu leaves, which were threatened by the alleged encroachment.
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
File FIR against channels that showed teacher as Lashkar terrorist killed during Op Sindoor: J&K court
A local court in J&K on Saturday directed the police to register an FIR against some news channels that had aired the photograph of a local religious seminary portraying him as an LeT terrorist killed in Kotli in Pakistan occupied Kashmir during Operation Sindoor. The teacher Qari Mohammad Iqbal of Qari Mohalla was in fact killed during cross-bordering shelling by Pakistan in Poonch on May 7. India launched Operation Sindoor and hit nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 in which 26 people were killed. Referring to a report by SHO Poonch that two news channels had initially aired that Iqbal was a Pakistan terrorist, later withdrew it and issued an apology following clarification, Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, Sjafeeq Ahmed, said, 'the subsequent apology by the news channels does not cure the mischief already caused''. 'An apology may have mitigating value at the state of sentencing, but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,' the judge observed, directing the SHO of Poonch Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 353(2) (public mischief) ,356 (defamation) and 196(1) (outraging religious sentiments) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 'While freedom of the press is a vital part of democracy protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as defamation, public order, decency and morality,' the judge said. 'In the present case, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a Pakistani terrorist without any verification, particularly during a period of India-Pakistan hostilities, cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,' he said. 'Such conduct amounts to public mischief and defamation, capable of causing public outrage, disturbing social harmony, and tarnishing the reputation of the deceased and the institution he served,'' the judge said. '… In today's digital era, misinformation can spread rapidly, creating confusion and unrest,' the judge said. An application seeking registration of an FIR against the news channels was filed by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, who claimed that the news channels not only displayed his name and photograph portraying him as an LeT terrorist, but also linked him to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. Referring to the SHO's report that the family members of the deceased did not lodge any complaint and the broadcast of the news had originated from Delhi, the judge said there is no legal bar to any person with knowledge of the offence, including a public spirited citizen, to initiate such action. The SHO's second contention about the territorial jurisdiction in view of broadcast originating from Delhi also fails in the light of Section 199 BNS which provides that when an act and its consequences occur in different places, jurisdiction arises in either location, the judge said. In the present case, the consequence of the broadcast — defamation, emotional injury and public unrest — occurred in Poonch, where the deceased resided, served and was martyred, he pointed out. Earlier, Iqbal's family members had served legal notice through advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed to both the news channels seeking damages of Rs 5 crore each.
