Foreign the 26th amendment itself was passed by parliament to overcome the effect of this judgment Now by this amendment article 291 and 362 are omitted article 363 a is inserted and Clause 22 of article 366 is amended therefore one cannot be allowed to say that the above says omitted articles and amended Clause
Where the essential part of the Constitutional scheme so they have to be read only in the context of a challenge made to the presidential order which sought to render nugatory certain rights guaranteed in the Constitution which were then existing in any event the Constitutional bar of article 363
Denudes the jurisdiction of any Court in disputes arising from covenants and treaties executed by the rulers the statement of objection reasons of 26th amendment clearly points out that the retention of the articles and continuation of the Privileges and privy purses would be incompatible with the egalitarian society assured in the
Constitution and therefore in order to remove the concept of rulership and terminate the recognition granted to ruler and abolish the privy purses this amendment was brought now 92 is very important but which would also assist your losses from the question of federal diversity we are of the opinion that the
Observations of Justice Shah in madhavrao that privileges of rulers are made an integral part of the Constitutional scheme and that the institution of rulership rulership is an integral part of the Constitutional scheme must be read in their proper context that was a case whereby a presidential order the rulers were
Deprived of their privy purses and other privileges while keeping article 291 and 362 intact in the Constitution this doesn’t arise here indeed the said presidential order was issued after the government failed in its attempt to effect an amendment on those lines it is in that connection that learned judge made the above
Observations it is clear that the learning judge used the word integral part in their ordinary connotation not in lexicographical sense ordinarily speaking integral means of a whole or necessary to completeness of a whole and as forming a whole our constitution is not a disjoint document it incorporates a particular socio-economic and political philosophy
It is an integral whole every provision of it is an integral part of it even the provisions contained in article 21 temporary transitional and I’m sorry part 21 temporary transitional and special Provisions one may ask which provision which concept or which institution in the constitution is not
An integral part of the Constitution he will not find an answer to say that a particular provision or a particular institution or concept is an integral part of the Constitution is not to say that it is an essential feature of the Constitution both are totally distinct and qualitatively different concepts the
Seed argument is really born of an attempt to read a judgment as a statue one may tend to miss the true meaning of the decision by doing so we may say the effort observations of Justice constituted the anchor of the petitioner’s argument relating to the basic structure but not just similarly
Federalism is also another a basic structure but the federal diversity can still exist within federalism but no that’s a separate issue the above in the above Prima is it is not permissible to test 26th amendment with reference to observations made in madhav Rao but now
Kindly come to P para 96 at page five double six yeah permanent Your Love secrets prepare 96 at page 566 yes permanent retention of the privy person the Privileges of Rights would be incompatible with the Sovereign and Republic form of government such a retention will also be incompatible with the egalitarian form
Of our Constitution that is the opinion of the parliament which acted to repeal the afforded Provisions in exercise of its constituent power the repudiation of the right of previous privileges dignities Etc by deletion of Articles so and so which the recognition of the rulers and payment of privy purse
Are withdrawn cannot be said to have offended article 14 or 19 1f and we do not find any logic in such submission no principle of Justice either economic political or social is violated by the 26th amendment political Justice relates to the principles of right of the people that is right to Universal sufferage
Right to democratic form of government and right to participation in political Affairs economic Justice is enshrined in article 39 of the Constitution social justice is enshrined in fellowships can skip that 97 a series a serious argument has been Advanced that the privy purse was a just quit pro quo to the rulers of
Indian States for surrendering their sovereignty and rights over their territories and that move for integration begin on a positive promising promising note but it soon degenerated into a game of maneuver presumably at as a deceptive plan of action this argument based on the ground of breaking of solemn pledges and Bridge
Of Promise cannot stand much scrutiny to say that without voluntary accession India that is Bharat would be fundamentally different from that Bharat that came into being prior to the accession is untenable much less inconceivable please don’t mark this mother beautiful words one should not lose sight of the fact that neither
Because of their antipathy Towers the rulers nor due to any xenophobia did the Indian government entertain the idea of integration but because of the will of the people it was the people of the state who were basically instrumental in inter integration of India it would be apposite to refer to the observations of
Justice Bose in virender Singh judgment every Vestige of sovereignty was abandoned by the Dominion of India and the states and surrender to the people of the land who through their representatives in the constituent assembly hammered out for themselves a new constitution in which all were citizens in a new order having but one
Tie and owing but one Allegiance devotion loyalty Fidelity to The Sovereign Democratic Republic that is India but thereafter it is also worthwhile to take note of the historical process of States integration May directly can come to one zero nine at page 569 107. on a deep country your lordship yes my Lord
Beta107 on a deep consideration of the entire scheme and content of the Constitution we do not see any force in the above submission in the present case there is no question of change of identity on account of 26th amendment the removal of article 291 and 362 has
Not been made has not made any change in the personality of the Constitution either in its scheme or in its basic features or in its basic form or its character but please read 370 in this does it change the personality of the character of The Constitution the question of identity will arise only
When there is a change in the form character and content of the constitution in fact in the present case the identity of the Constitution even on the test proposed by the council for repetitioners and interveners Remains the Same and Unchained SRI so-and-so has contended that by removing the real and
Substantial distinction with between erstwhile princes forming a class and the rest of citizenry of India the Constitutional amendment has at one stroke violated the basic structure of the Constitution as reflected both in article 14 and 51c and treated unequals or equals thereby giving a go back to a solemn treaty obligation which was
Sanctified as independent constitutional guarantee 109. this is very very important and crucial for our purpose the purpose of the respondents after carefully going through the above decisions which relate to service matters we are afraid that such an argument as one made by SRI so-and-so could not be substantiated on the
Principles laid down in these two decisions that article 14 will be violated if unequals are treated as equals in our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance to the facts of the present case please note this one of the objectives of the Preamble of our constitution is fraternity assuring the
Dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation it will be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr ambedkar for Words fraternity explaining that fraternity means a sense of common Brotherhood of all citizens no region no part of the region no citizens staying in any region should get any
Different treatment than rest of the country in a country like ours with so many disruptive forces of regionalism communalism and linguism it is necessary to emphasize and de-emphasize that unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of Brotherhood India has one common citizenship and every
Citizen should feel that he is Indian first irrespective of other bases you know therefore I started by saying that a psychology logical duality in the mind is now completely gone in this view any measure please mark this in this view any measure at bringing about equality should be welcome
There is no legitimacy in the argument in favor of continuance of princely privileges since we have held that abolition of privy purses is not viability of article 14 it is unnecessary for us to deal with the cases cited which according to him go to say so and so then 110 one of the
Arguments Advanced by Mr Didi thakur is that the constitution should be read in the context of a pluralistic society of India where there are several distinct and different differing interests brought together and harmonized by the Constitution makers by assuring each section class and Society preservation of certain political cultural and social
Features specific to that class or section by way of example reference to article 370 which confers a special status for Jammu and Kashmir is made he continues to state that likewise in the northeastern states the tribals were given autonomous powers for their District council’s co-equal to
What is conferred on the states and that the minorities special Provisions are made in article 30. besides article 25 and 26 are meant to safeguard the minorities and religious denominations the persons to determine the injury will be those for whom these Provisions were made and whose interests are prejudiced
According to him in such a Circumstance the assurance and guarantees given and article 291 and 362 which are the Magna Carta assuring the rulers of their pre-existing rights cannot in any way be destroyed we do not think that therefore said special Provisions have any relevance here as repeatedly pointed out Supreme
The only question whether there is any change in the basic structure of the Constitution by deleting article 291 and 362 and by insertion of article 363 a an amendment of clause 22 of 366. we have already answered this question in the negative Observer observing that the basic structure of the essential feature
Of the Constitution is or are in no way change or altered by the impuned amendment we cannot make cermices of its ifs and buts and arrive at conclusion that article 291 and 362 should have been kept in Tech as special provisions made for minorities in the Constitution
It is but as a step in the historical Evolution to achieve fraternity and unity of the nation transcending all regional linguistic religious and other diversities which are the Bedrock on which the Constitutional fabric has been raised the distinction between the erstwhile rulers and the citizenry of
India has to be put an end to so as to have a common Brotherhood the court traces it to fraternity mentioned in the Preamble
source
