Socialist-secular debate: ‘Dattatreya Hosabale seeks regression, not reform'
Socialism, too, is not an alien transplant. It means social justice. It means the state must look after the weak. It means wealth cannot be the only source of power. Ambedkar didn't oppose the idea. He only warned against locking in an economic model. But the Directive Principles say enough: reduce inequality, ensure fair wages, protect the dignity of labour. These are socialist values, Indian in spirit.Hosabale says the amendment came during dark times. True. But a bad moment doesn't make every act bad. Courts didn't strike down that part of the amendment. Even the Janata government, which reversed much of the Emergency's excesses, retained those words, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, as important ministers in that government, raised no objection to the continuation of those words.The Supreme Court has settled this. In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), secularism was enumerated among the Constitution's basic features. In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the court said secularism is part of the Constitution's basic features. These are not footnotes. These are judgments of large constitution benches.You cannot amend the basic structure. You cannot touch the foundation without breaking the house. Parliament is powerful, but not absolute. Hosabale's demand is not about semantics. It is about reshaping the state. It is about shifting India from a secular republic to a majoritarian democracy. That's not just a constitutional problem. It's a national one.advertisementIndia is not one colour, one language, one faith. It is a complex, layered society. Secularism is how we manage that diversity. Not by denial. But by respect and neutrality. You don't need the word 'secular' to act secular. But once you drop the word, you make space for its opposite. That is the risk. Words matter. That's why the RSS wants to drop them. To clear the path for something else. They want a Hindu Rashtra, not a secular republic. Let us not pretend otherwise. This is not about constitutional clarity. It's about political ambition. The Preamble is not a draft. It is a declaration. It says who we are. It says what we aspire to be. We may not always live up to it. But we do not give up on it or allow our national covenant to be rewritten by those who never believed in its words to begin with.—The author is a senior advocate at the Supreme CourtadvertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
Can govt appoint trustee of Banke Bihari temple, HC asks UP govt
Prayagraj (UP), Jul 23 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has sought a reply from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether it can appoint its officials as trustees of the Banke Bihari temple in Mathura, a private temple, by the issuance of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, after hearing amicus curiae Sanjeev Goswami, fixed July 30 as the next date of hearing on a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and another. According to the amicus curiae, 'The temple is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of the late Swami Hari Dasji. By the issuance of the ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door." The amicus curiae apprised the court that according to the ordinance, there would be two kinds of trustees of the board — nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees. The nominated trustees will be the seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants etc. from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of the Sanatan Dharma. However, he raised strong objections as to the seven ex-officio trustees, who are officials like the district magistrate, the special superintendent of police and the municipal commissioner of Mathura, which he said would amount to a back-door entry by the state government in the private temple. 'The creation of such a trust amounts to intruding into the Hindu religion by the state government. The Constitution does not provide for the State to practise any religion and take control of any temple," the amicus curiae said. The court, in its order dated July 21, sought the state government's reply and observed, 'The matter requires consideration. Hearing to continue. Put up this case as fresh on July 30, 2025. By that time, the state government would respond to the argument which has been raised by the amicus curiae. PTI COR RAJ RC (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 01:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Congress slams BJP men in BHU's EC
Lucknow: The Congress party opposed the inclusion of BJP MP (from Chandauli) Mahendra Nath Pandey and Mayor Ashok Tiwari in the executive council of BHU. "Instead of choosing academicians, the university appointed politicians and people with known RSS backing. This move is akin to ruining a world-renowned university and turning it into an RSS office," said Ajay Rai, UPCC president. He added, "The politicisation of the executive council is unfortunate and we demand an immediate end to this politicisation and that qualified individuals be made members of the council." Emphasising that the RSS influence in this council is condemnable, Rai stated: "We raised this issue last year, suggesting that the council should include academicians, vice-chancellors, scientists and important figures from the education sector who were honoured with prestigious awards like Padma Shree or Padma Bhushan." tnn However, the Central govt, which already influenced BHU with RSS ideology, repeated its low-level actions." Rai asserted that the situation in BHU deteriorated over time. "When there was a vice-chancellor at BHU, there was no executive council and now when there is an executive council, there is no vice-chancellor. The situation is so dire that BHU became a victim of corruption rather than a centre of education, with chaos and corruption everywhere. In a prestigious institution like BHU, justice and ethics are being strangled," Rai said.
