Elocution contest on Constitution in July
The Prakasam Zilla Abhivruddhi Vedika, Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR), Constitutional Rights Protection Forum (CRPF), and various people's organisations will conduct elocution competitions for students and youth on the subject 'Minimum Understanding of the Indian Constitution' in July.
A delegation including Chunduri Rangarao, retired Deputy Collector P Perayya, OPGR State President Chavali Sudhakar Rao, retired headmaster Dhulipalla Venkateswarlu, and Ravindra Bharati school teacher Srinu visited several school principals in Ongole to distribute educational books to the students interested in participating in the competition.
The books distributed included 'Minimum Understanding of Indian Constitution,' published by RTI Campaign Forum, 'Dr BR Ambedkar's Three Historic Speeches in the Constituent Assembly,' and 'Indian Constitutional Preamble' authored by Prof Madabhushi Sridhar.
These books were provided to various government and municipal schools, including PVR Boys High School, PVR Junior College, Gowtham High School, Gowtham Junior College, Narayana Boys and Girls Junior Colleges in Ongole.
Speaking on the occasion, Rangarao said that people need a basic understanding of the Constitution to protect their rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘DMK alliance is intact in Tamil Nadu'
The INDIA alliance led by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu is firm and no party will exit the alliance, claimed the alliance parties at the CPI State Conference on Saturday. On the second day of the conference, leaders of INDIA alliance parties including Congress, MDMK, CPI(M), KMDK, TVK, IUML, and MMK participated. Tamilaga Valvurimai Katchi (TVK) president T. Velmurugan said even though Left parties were in the DMK alliance, they were not accepting all the laws brought by the government. They raised their voice and pointed out the mistakes. The parties in the DMK alliance would not exit the alliance for seats or other benefits, Mr. Velmurugan added. Kongunadu Makkal Desia Katchi (KMDK) general secretary E.R. Eswaran said as there was democracy in Tamil Nadu, even the alliance parties protested against the government. Communist Party of India (Marxist) State secretary P. Shanmugam said the BJP government was acting against the Indian Constitution and attacking its basic concepts of democracy, secularism, and federalism. Through new laws, the Centre was allegedly grabbing the rights of people. Fortunately, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP did not get the majority and they were unable to change the Constitution. All democratic forces should be united to unseat the BJP government and Communists would work for this. The Communists always fought for the welfare of workers, be it Samsung workers or conservancy workers and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin also knew this., Mr. Shanmugam added. Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) president K. Selvaperunthagai said whenever democracy was in danger, the Communists would raise their voice. Until Congress, Communists, and other democratic forces were in Tamil Nadu, the BJP would be defeated.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Can't assume powers Constitution has not vested': Centre warns Supreme Court against judicial overreach
Opposing the Supreme Court fixing a three-month timeline for the President and governor to act on bills forwarded by the state legislature, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has said that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy and 'if any organ [of state] is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder…'. In written submissions to the court, where a five-judge bench is hearing a reference made by the President on whether time schedules can be fixed for the actions of the President or governor, on August 12, Mehta stressed the importance of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Despite this, he pointed out, 'there are certain zones which remain exclusive to either of the three organs…and cannot be trenched upon by the others. The high plenary positions of Governors and President fall within that zone. While they are political positions, they are also representations of democratic will'. 'While the President is elected and governors are appointed by Council of Ministers [acting through President], direct elections are not the only form of democratic processes in a republican democracy. The positions of power, where appointments are made by elected representatives, are also legitimate centres of democratic faith,' Mehta said. On governors, he said, they 'are thus not to be treated as alien/foreigner in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit. They represent national interest and national democratic will in the States as part of the larger Indian constitutional brotherhood.' Responding to the question of granting assent to bills, he said: 'The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature.' Mehta pointed out that 'this blended and unique nature of assent, clothes it with a constitutional character whereby no judicially manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel.' Mehta said that 'a wide-ranging judicial review of assent procedures, either post-assent or at a stage anterior to the grant of assent, would potentially destabilise the constitutional balance between organs of State. It would create an institutional hierarchy and upset the constitutional balance of powers between the three organs' and 'has the potential to convert the Indian Constitution, into one which postulates supremacy of Judiciary as a doctrinal principle'. This, he said, was against the 'basic structure of the Constitution' and 'against any justifiable reading of the Constitution as a whole'. Mehta underlined that 'judicial deference and restraint have come to define the high ideals of Indian judiciary, and the judicial branch does not hold keys or solutions for every conundrum that may arise in a democratic polity'. Saying that the Constitution framers, advisedly, left some questions outside the judicial realm, he added: 'This has been recognised as an inherent limitation of judicial procedures and judicial forums across the world….The power of mandamus thus, cannot be exercised over such functionaries owing to their constitutional status and inter-organ comity.' The law officer said that 'each organ of the State in the Constitution has certain core functions, one organ interfering with the core functions of another would breach the separation of powers which is a fundamental feature of Indian Constitution'. Saying that certain political questions may have only democratic remedies under the Constitution, Mehta said: 'In the zest of finding a solution to the problem presented before one organ, such organ must follow the essential feature of separation of powers in such core functions.' He further pointed out that 'when the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. On the other hand, when it designedly sought to keep the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. Since the text of Article 200 or 201 does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.' Mehta said that 'the exercise Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them. The Apex Court, even under Article 142, is bound by constitutional provisions and principles'. He added that 'the alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers.' The SG said it 'would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution establishes and would negate the rule of law. The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally sanctioned mechanisms such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the Court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head.'
The Wire
7 hours ago
- The Wire
Tryst with Destiny, Yet Unfulfilled
Independence is not a trophy but a foundation – one that requires building roads and rights, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring every citizen finds belonging in this republic. At the stroke of midnight on August 14-15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru stood before the Constituent Assembly and spoke words that would resonate through time: 'Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny…and at the stroke of the midnight hour…India will awake to life and freedom.' These were not just words of triumph but a clarion call to transform a nation scarred by centuries of colonial oppression into a republic of dignity, justice, and opportunity. As India celebrates its Independence Day in 2025, nearing the centenary of that historic moment, Nehru's vision remains a lodestar – yet the pledge to redeem that tryst 'not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially' stands at a crossroads. India's ascent as a global power is undeniable. Still, the chasm between macroeconomic triumphs and individual welfare, coupled with strains on democratic institutions, demands a renewed commitment to the ideals of 1947. India's economic rise is a testament to its resilience. With a nominal GDP exceeding US $ 4 trillion in 2025, India has surpassed Japan to become the fourth-largest economy, trailing only the United States, China, and Germany. Forecasts project real GDP growth of 6.2% in 2025 and 6.3% in 2026, outpacing the global average of 2.8%. This growth reflects the ambition Nehru envisioned—a nation seizing opportunity from the ashes of colonial exploitation. The Green Revolution transformed India from a famine-prone land into a global food exporter, while missions like Chandrayaan-3 and Mangalyaan have positioned India among the space-faring elite. Digital infrastructure, from UPI's global-standard payment systems to widespread internet penetration, underscores India's technological leap. These achievements embody the 'flushing of the dawn' Nehru foresaw, where a nation's suppressed soul finds expression. Yet, this aggregate success masks a profound paradox. India's per capita GDP, estimated at US $ 2,754 to 2,880, ranks in the 140s globally, revealing a stark disconnect between national wealth and individual prosperity. The World Inequality Lab notes that the top 1% capture nearly 23% of national income, while the bottom 50% share just 13%. The Human Development Index (HDI) for 2023 placed India at 0.685 (130th globally), with an inequality-adjusted HDI of 0.475. While only 5.25% of the population lives below US $ 3 per day, 82% survive on less than USD 8.30 daily. These figures expose a nation where economic might has not translated into inclusive welfare. Rural areas, in particular, lag in access to quality education, healthcare, and livelihoods, while caste, gender, and regional disparities persist. Nehru's tryst was not just with power but with equity—a promise yet to be fully redeemed. The colonial legacy Nehru spoke against set the stage for these challenges. As Shashi Tharoor details in Inglorious Empire, India's global GDP share plummeted from 23–27% in the early 18th century to 3–4% by 1947 due to systematic British exploitation. Land revenue systems and commercial cropping triggered chronic famines, claiming millions of lives. Artisans were crushed by cheap European imports, and forests vital to indigenous communities were ravaged by colonial policies. Partition's communal violence and mass migration – displacing up to 10 million – left a fractured society and economy. Against this backdrop, India's nation-building was a Herculean feat. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's unification of over 560 princely states reshaped the subcontinent's map, while the Constituent Assembly, under leaders like B.R. Ambedkar, crafted a Constitution that enshrined universal adult suffrage and reservations for marginalized communities. Institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Planning Commission, and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences laid the foundation for progress, embodying Nehru's call for a republic that dreams big. Today, however, such institutions face mounting pressures, from politicised appointments and budgetary constraints to ideological interference, as the Modi government increasingly seeks to align their functioning with its own narratives, often at the cost of academic freedom, autonomy, and long-term vision. Further, the democratic institutions that were the bedrock of this vision are now under strain. The 2025 electoral cycle in Bihar has ignited a firestorm, with the Election Commission of India (ECI) removing 6.5 million names —8.3% of the electorate—during a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have accused the ECI of voter manipulation, alleging the inclusion of fake names and the deletion of valid voters, with claims of dual EPIC numbers issued to BJP leaders. In Mahadevapura, protests erupted over alleged voter suppression, while nationwide torch marches, signature campaigns, and rallies demanded electoral transparency. In Delhi, approximately 300 opposition leaders were detained during a march to the ECI office. Analysts have warned of 'thermonuclear fallout' for democratic trust, urging the ECI to publish voter roll data and address allegations decisively. These concerns extend beyond Bihar. In Rajasthan, former chief minister Ashok Gehlot criticised amendments to the ECI appointment process – replacing the Chief Justice of India with the Union home minister on the selection panel – as a blow to democratic integrity. In Tripura, former chief minister Manik Sarkar accused the BJP of tampering with voter rolls, undermining institutional trust. In Kerala's Thrissur, allegations of mass fake voting prompted calls for a repoll, with the education minister labelling it a 'democratic massacre.' Reports also suggest that 6.5 million citizens, particularly migrant labourers and marginalised communities, face disenfranchisement due to documentation issues, threatening the inclusive democracy Nehru championed. These incidents highlight the fragility of India's democratic scaffolding and the urgent need for institutional reform. Nehru's speech was not mere rhetoric but a blueprint for responsibility. His call to 'be brave, wise, and ready to grasp opportunity' shaped early governance, from the Panchayati Raj system that decentralised power to the establishment of nuclear and space programs under Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai. Secularism and pluralism, central to the republic's identity, helped sustain unity despite Partition's wounds. Yet, Nehru's caution that 'as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over' remains prescient. Inequalities across caste, gender, region, and class persist, with access to quality education, healthcare, and livelihoods unevenly distributed. The political culture, too, has shifted. Nehru's warning against 'petty and destructive criticism' or 'ill will' resonates in an era of polarised discourse and image-driven politics, where credit-grabbing often overshadows institutional commitment. India's global vision, rooted in Nehru's Non-Aligned Movement, continues to inspire. By offering an alternative path for post-colonial nations, India championed a world where freedom was a universal right, not a privilege tied to superpower allegiance. This legacy endures as India supports democratic institution-building across Asia and Africa, from sharing electoral expertise to aiding infrastructure development. Yet, domestically, the nation must confront its own democratic deficits. The ECI's credibility hinges on transparent action – publishing voter data, investigating allegations, and restoring public trust. Economic policies must prioritise per capita prosperity, ensuring growth benefits the many, not just the few. Civil liberties – freedom to dissent, question, and protest—must be safeguarded as fiercely as economic targets. Pluralism, India's greatest strength, must be nurtured, not tokenised. As India celebrates yet another year of independence, the grandeur of 1947 still propels us. The nation's successes; economic, scientific, and democratic, are remarkable, yet they must be matched by renewed commitment to equality, justice, and institutional integrity. The path forward demands humility and urgency. The ECI must act decisively to restore trust, while economic policymaking must bridge the gap between national ambition and social uplift. Education and healthcare must reach the marginalised, and democracy must remain a lived reality, not a procedural formality. Nehru's 'Tryst with Destiny' was not a moment of closure but a call to perpetual action. He spoke of a future glimpsed 'in the flushing of the dawn,' urging resolve and self-awareness. In 2025, that dawn demands vigilance. Independence is not a trophy but a foundation – one that requires building roads and rights, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring every citizen finds belonging in this republic. The noble mansion of Free India, as Nehru envisioned, is not constructed with bricks of power alone but with the steadfast labor of inclusion, the scaffolding of institutions, and the open door of opportunity. The tryst with destiny, far from redeemed, beckons us to act—not with nostalgia, but with the courage to forge a nation where liberty is real in every life, not just in every ledger. Let us step forward, as Nehru urged, with humility and ardor, to fulfil the pledge made long years ago. Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst and columnist. He posts on X @ens_socialis Thirunavukarasu S. is a Junior Research Fellow, Doctoral Research Scholar at University of Madras. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
