India is a Hindu nation, says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

[Bang Galore]

you are talking about legality no practicality have seen justice Katju Revelations recently Monmoham singh letter two CJI

Neither you nor I can be sure of the practicality that may apply in future, I can only claim to somewhat understand the legality.

 

[jbond197]

The statement was about the identity of the nation and there is no denying that identity of India is Hindu or Dharmic and literally speaking there is nothing wrong in what he said, unless we go into technicalities. People have been travelling to India to learn about Dharmic spirituality, and not about other religions. That itself tells how everyone sees India as!!

But stretching the debate over a mere statement to changes in constitution, that's unfair!

 

[Areesh]

I agree with Mr Mohan Bhagwat. Nothing wrong with his statement. India was never a secular state. It was all BS drama.

 

[NKVD]

The SC will examine any constitutional amendment under that ruling. The parameters are set. Any amendment that does not pass muster will be voided. Effectively not implementable. Therefore, cannot be done.

Btw, haven't we already discussed this once before.....

@Bang Galore SC will only check Parameter of the Amendment Passed by Parliament Under the the Approval of president read article 145(1) of the constitution
145. Rules of Court,Etc
(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including

 

[Bang Galore]

LOL, yes we have.

Don't you think its a bit silly to say the parameters are set, when you already know the earlier SC ruling on the basic structure was over ruled and changed by another bench within a span of 30 years.

Not silly at all. I'm referring to the parameters that exist now under which any amendment to the constitution will be examined. You are talking hypothetically about.... if another constitutional bench is set up, if it then rules to overturn this existing decision etc.... that's a completely different realm. I made the point that no matter what a government or indeed what a parliament does now, it will face scrutiny under the ruling now existing, not about a hypothetical ruling from a hypothetical constitutional bench (will have to be a full bench) that may or may not happen.

Btw, do you seriously think that there will ever be a SC that will overturn this? You will need a full bench, I don't think there will. Even if you differ about the possibility of such, we are left then with what is current. Till such a change happens, if it happens. The current position is clear. What I said.

The majority judgement invoked the concept of implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution
. This view held that the Constitution gives a place of permanence to the fundamental freedoms of the citizen. In giving the Constitution to themselves, the people had reserved the fundamental rights for themselves.
Article 13 , according to the majority view, expressed this limitation on the powers of Parliament. Parliament could not modify, restrict or impair fundamental freedoms due to this very scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms
granted under it. The judges stated that the fundamental rights were so sacrosanct and transcendental in importance that
they could not be restricted even if such a move were to receive unanimous approval of both houses of Parliament. They observed that a Constituent Assembly might be summoned by Parliament for the purpose of amending the fundamental rights if necessary.

 

[NKVD]

I agree with Mr Mohan Bhagwat. Nothing wrong with his statement. India was never a secular state. It was all BS drama.

The term Hindu is Itself Signifies Secular

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore SC will only check Parameter of the Amendment Passed by Parliament Under the the Approval of president read article 145(1) of the constitution
145. Rules of Court,Etc
(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including

All constitutional amendments will be scrutinised. Anything that does not fall within the parameters set out will be given the order of the boot.

Even the judicial accountability bill that has been passed unanimously will certainly be challenged. I think it will pass muster but the point is even this will be challenged. Something more basic will almost certainly be.

 

[NairLand]

Not silly at all. I'm referring to the parameters that exist now under which any amendment to the constitution will be examined. You are talking hypothetically about.... if another constitutional bench is set up, if it then rules to overturn this existing decision etc.... that's a completely different realm. I made the point that no matter what a government or indeed what a parliament does now, it will face scrutiny under the ruling now existing, not about a hypothetical ruling from a hypothetical constitutional bench (will have to be a full bench) that may or may not happen.

Btw, do you seriously think that there will ever be a SC that will overturn this? You will need a full bench, I don't think there will. Even if you differ about the possibility of such, we are left then with what is current. Till such a change happens, if it happens. The current position is clear. What I said.

The said change in the constitution which when challenged in the SC will certainly need the constitutional bench to be reconvened to resolve the dispute.

The SC cannot refer to its earlier judgement alone, especially since the earlier ruling itself was a split decision which was passed on the slenderest of margin.

The current ruling forces India to be "secular", "socialist", "maintain political unity", "Liberty of though & expression", "sovereignty" all of which is not implementable or is not implemented.

1. Reservation based on religion and separate civil code based on religion is contrary to the ruling.
2. Private enterprise and capitalism is against socialism
3. Ceding of Kachchatheevu island to SL questions the geographical unity character, so did ceding of Coco island to Burma
4. Banning of books is against 'liberty of though and expression'
5. Existence of LOC is against the sovereignty principle.

There are many more examples that bring out the glaring loop holes in this absurd ruling and you can be sure in this age of internet and easy access to knowledge, any new constitutional bench is guaranteed to make a different ruling.

 

[NKVD]

All constitutional amendments will be scrutinised. Anything that does not fall within the parameters set out will be given the order of the boot.

Even the judicial accountability bill that has been passed unanimously will certainly be challenged. I think it will pass muster but the point is even this will be challenged. Something more basic will almost certainly be.

President is a Executive head of all Including Judiciary As-well.Without Consultation or Approval of the President SC cannot State its Provisions in Any Bill Amendment Procedure of Parliament.Actually all of the executive authority vested in the President are, in practice, exercised by the Prime minister Or Union Govt So Indirectly SC cannot Do it Without Consulting Union Govt IndirectlyVery Complicated

 

[NKVD]

The said change in the constitution which when challenged in the SC will certainly need the constitutional bench to be reconvened to resolve the dispute.

The SC cannot refer to its earlier judgement alone, especially since the earlier ruling itself was a split decision which was passed on the slenderest of margin.

The current ruling forces India to be "secular", "socialist", "maintain political unity", "Liberty of though & expression", "sovereignty" all of which is not implementable or is not implemented.

1. Reservation based on religion and separate civil code based on religion is contrary to the ruling.
2. Private enterprise and capitalism is against socialism
3. Ceding of Kachchatheevu island to SL questions the geographical unity character, so did ceding of Coco island to Burma
3. Banning of books is against 'liberty of though and expression'
4. Existence of LOC is against the sovereignty principle.

There are many more examples that bring out the glaring loop holes in this absurd ruling and you can be sure in this age of internet and easy access to knowledge, any new constitutional bench is guaranteed to make a different ruling.

In very Simple way i Can Tell yo SC can do Nothing without consulting Union Govt
The President of India is the head of state of the Republic of India. The President is the formal head of the executive,legislature and judiciary of India and is the commander-in-chief of the Indian Armed Forces.

Although Article 53 of the Constitution of India states that the President can exercise his or her powers directly or by subordinate authority,with few exceptions, all of the executive authority vested in the President are, in practice, exercised by the popularly elected Government of India, headed by the Prime Minister. This Executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister with the help of the Council of Ministers.

Conclusion:
Indirectly SC Cannot State Its Provisions In Amendments Passed in Parliament Without Approval of Union Govt

 

[NairLand]

In very Simple way i Can Tell yo SC can do Nothing without consulting Union Govt
...............
...............

Indirectly SC Cannot State Its Provisions In Amendments Passed in Parliament Without Approval of Union Govt

The President is the Fist citizen of India and is theoretically the head of India. However all his actions have to be recommended by the PM or the council of Ministers.

He can order any action but it has to be executed by the cabinet and if they refuse to execute it then there is nothing he can do. Same goes for his ordering the SC to do something. If they refuse, there is nothing the Prez can do.

Even the speech the Prez. makes has to be approved by the cabinet or the PM. The usual practice is the speech is prepared by the PMO and the Prez. reads it out.

Finally the Prez. is the theoretical head of the GoI, but its not the Union Govt. He is the commander in chief of the Army, but no army man is going to go against the PM even if the Prez. asks him to do so.

 

[Juggernautjatt]

A simple question to all RSS fans, just give name of three leaders of the RSS who went to jail against the British rule, in which case and for how long?

 

[NairLand]

A simple question to all RSS fans, just give name of three leaders of the RSS who went to jail against the British rule, in which case and for how long?

Can you name at least 3 leaders of congress (Indira) who went to jail against British rule ? .....and for how long ?

How about any AAP leaders who went to jail against British rule ?

 

[Juggernautjatt]

Can you name at least 3 leaders of congress (Indira) who went to jail against British rule ? .....and for how long ?

How about any AAP leaders who went to jail against British rule ?

Well I hate Congress & Nehru Gandhi family more than you & like RSS their contribution in our freedom is zero. And for your kind information.AAP was established in 2012, 65 years after independence so there is no logic in your question. In fact majority of sacrifices for our independence were made by people with Socialist & secular thinking.
Now please answer my question if you are RSS fan.

 

[NairLand]

Well I hate Congress & Nehru Gandhi family more than you & like RSS their contribution in our freedom is zero. And for your kind information.AAP was established in 2012, 65 years after independence so there is no logic in your question. In fact majority of sacrifices for our independence were made by people with Socialist & secular thinking.
Now please answer my question if you are RSS fan.

I am an RSS admirer but who would I know how many RSS people went to jail ?

RSS was NOT a political organization and a LOT of RSS members were also members of the Congress party ....... a LOT of RSS members were also part of the Civil Disobedience movements. Some were part of Subhas Chandra bose's "Azad hind sena". Some of them like Veer Savarkar is more well know.

Since AAP is established in 2012 we can now safely say that they had NO role to play in India's freedom struggle, right ?? ......so that must make them a desh drohi party ?