'Not The Core Of Our Culture': Shivraj Chouhan Calls For Removing 'Secularism' From Constitution
Last Updated:
Chouhan called for removing "secularism" and "socialism" from the Indian constitution, stating they were added during the Emergency and are not core to Indian culture.
Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on Friday called for the removal of the word 'secularism" from the Indian constitution, saying it is not the 'core of our culture." The former Madhya Pradesh chief minister went on to say that there is no need for the word 'socialism" in the constitution as well.
The minister pointed out that both terms were included in the preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency.
'The basic sentiment of India is equality of all religions… Secularism is not the core of our culture. The word secularism was added (to our culture) during the Emergency. It should be removed… Live and let live is the basic sentiment of India… Therefore, there is no need for socialism here… There is no need for the word socialism (samajwad) either. The country should think about this," he said.
Chouhan's remark came after RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call for reviewing the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution. Hosable said it is not about dismantling the constitution but about restoring its 'original spirit", free from the 'distortions" of the Congress' Emergency-era policies, according to an article published in an RSS-linked magazine on Friday.
The Agriculture Minister termed the Emergency a 'dark period" in democracy.
'While I was being taken to jail on foot and in handcuffs, some children passing by saw me and said that I must be a thief. When I heard the word 'chor', my conscience wept. I started shouting slogans alone that 'zulm ke aage nahi jhukunga, zulm kiya toh aur ladunga'… When I reached Bhopal Central Jail, I was shouting slogans from outside, and those who were already jailed were shouting slogans from inside the jail… I had made up my mind in that jail that I would not live for myself. I have to do something for the country and society," he added.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
19 minutes ago
- Economic Times
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come. US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? How does this ruling expand presidential power? What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's the broader impact of the ruling? Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing FAQs: In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supriya Sule in city today, to meet party workers
Nagpur: (Sharadchandra Pawar) National Working President will hold a meeting with party workers in Nagpur on Saturday, as part of her one-day visit here. The Lok Sabha MP is scheduled to arrive at 8 am and will first visit Deekshabhoomi. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now According to NCP leader Salil Deshmukh, Sule will start a meeting with key office bearers at Ravi Bhavan. It is expected that the party's preparations for local body polls will be on the agenda. Sule, who recently visited various countries as part of the delegations sent by the Indian govt post-Operation Sindoor, will also address the media after this meeting. The NCP (SP) is keen to contest as many seats as possible in local body polls if an alliance is formed. Local party leaders say that they are preparing to go solo, and the groundwork for that has already started. Sule will head back to Mumbai by 4 pm.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Union min opens slew of devpt projects in Chd
Chandigarh: Union minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar inaugurated several development projects for the UT from the Govt College of Commerce & Business Administration in Sector 50 here Friday. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Among them were a hostel block for boys and girls at the Commerce College in the same sector, a 2,500 KW floating solar power plant at Water Works in Sector 39, the extension block of Govt Senior Secondary School in Kajheri, and the IT block at the Post Graduate Govt College in Sector 46. In addition, the MoS (home affairs) virtually laid the foundation for the construction of 144 residential units in the Chandigarh Armed Police Complex at Dhanas. Kumar described Chandigarh as a true embodiment of the spirit of "Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat." He commended the city's progress in development, transparency, and security, noting that the implementation of Smart City projects, road and public transport modernisation, digital governance, ease-of-living initiatives, and Green India and Swachh Bharat missions brought tangible improvements to citizens' lives. He underscored that Chandigarh holds the distinction of being the first in the country to fully implement the three new legal frameworks — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The city's pioneering adoption of these new criminal, civil, and evidence laws marks a historic step toward strengthening citizen protection and justice delivery. He said, "The projects inaugurated and foundation stones laid today reflect not only Chandigarh's development but also the broader national vision and commitment under the principle of 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas'". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He emphasised that these initiatives will enhance educational quality, safety, and infrastructure, empower youth with technology skills through the new IT block, and provide better living conditions for police personnel through the housing project in Dhanas. Looking ahead to the vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, Bandi Sanjay Kumar expressed confidence that India will emerge as the world's leading economic power. As part of this mission, Chandigarh will be developed as a knowledge hub, wellness city, and a model of smart governance. He congratulated all officials, planners, engineers, workers, and citizens of UT Chandigarh for their dedication and initiative toward this transformation.
