38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Preamble's amendment was biggest fraud on Constitution, Upadhyay tells SC

By Jhanak Sharma      22 August, 2024 11:46 AM      0 Comments
Preambles amendment was biggest fraud on Constitution Upadhyay tells SC

NEW DELHI: Eminent advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who spearheaded legal reforms by PILs, has told the Supreme Court during the black days of the emergency, the government by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act inserted ‘Socialist Secular Integrity’ in Preamble without changing the adoption date i.e. November 26, 1949 and on behalf of the Constituent Assembly, which did not exist in 1976 and even without following due process of law.

"Such a substantial factual brazen mistake and manifest arbitrariness cannot be allowed to continuously exist in the Constitution of the largest and oldest democracy of the world. In fact, such a post facto alteration of the facts needs to be restored with immediate effect," he said.

In a short note in his plea challenging validity of amendment into the Preamble, he said once Preamble has been adopted by the Constituent Assembly, any alteration in the adoption statement in 1976 without changing the date and that on behalf of the Constituent Assembly, which did not exist in 1976, is manifestly arbitrary and brazenly offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

"Section 2 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby the expressions Socialist-Secular were purportedly inserted in the Preamble, purportedly by “We, the People of India” and purported by the Constituent Assembly on 26.11.1949, is the biggest fraud on the Constitution," he said.

Upadhyay contended the mandate of the people of India came to an end and there was no ‘Will of the People’, when amendment was brought in.

"When Parliament debated the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976, the Proclamation of internal emergency dated 25.06.1975 was in operation and most of the opposition members of both the Houses of Parliament were in jail due to preventive detention and there was no debate in parliament," his note stated.

It pointed out the Presidential Order under Article 359 of the Constitution of June 27, 1975 suspending the right to move the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 was in operation; and more than one lakh people were under preventive detention under provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA), Defense and Internal Security of India Act and Regulations, 1971 (DISIR). Hence, the voice of people was silenced.

"There was no freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 for the citizens to express their views on the Bill. Press censorship was in operation, electricity and water supplies of the Media Houses were disconnected and even many journalists, cameramen and editors were harassed by various means," it stated.

Upadhyay asserted there was widespread fear and threat amongst the citizens, the Press was gagged, Opposition Members of both houses of the Parliament were jailed and democracy was totally throttled.

"In such circumstances, the Parliament had no authority to amend the Constitution, much less the Preamble and/or Fundamental Rights," he said.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Stop Dividing India On Minority-Majority Basis: BJP LEADER ASHWINI UPADHYAY Stop Dividing India On Minority-Majority Basis: BJP LEADER ASHWINI UPADHYAY

The Constitution of India is by the Indians and for the Indians. Globally, there are 6000 plus languages. Can we consider a Chinese or French-speaking person a linguistic minority? If yes, then India would end up having 60+ linguistic minorities. Linguistic minorities may be identified at the district level, and only Indian languages may be considered for protection under Articles 29-30, i.e. a Hindi speaking person is a linguistic minority in Kerala and Tamil speaking in Bihar. The same notion may follow for religious minorities too, and only India originated religions may be considered a religious minority

Ashwini Upadhyay Who Challenged Places of Worship Act Seeks Impleadment In Gyanvapi Dispute Before Supreme Court Ashwini Upadhyay Who Challenged Places of Worship Act Seeks Impleadment In Gyanvapi Dispute Before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had on Friday heard the Special Leave Petition regarding the Gyanvapi issue and had ordered that Order 7 Rule 11 Application being tried in the subordinate court of Varanasi be sent to the District Judge, as the Court was of the opinion that a seasoned hand would be required to handle the matter.

SC to hear plea against validity of Places of Worship Act on Sep 9 SC to hear plea against validity of Places of Worship Act on Sep 9

The Supreme Court is likely to hear on September 9 a plea by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandated maintaining character of religious places as prevailed on August 15, 1947.

TRENDING NEWS

wifes-domestic-violence-complaint-filed-after-divorce-petition-amounts-to-fresh-cruelty-condonation-cannot-bar-relief-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
Wife’s Domestic Violence Complaint Filed After Divorce Petition Amounts to Fresh Cruelty; Condonation Cannot Bar Relief: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Madras HC grants divorce, holds wife’s post-petition DV complaint amounts to fresh cruelty; condonation cannot bar relief.

30 March, 2026 05:15 PM
daughter-in-law-not-legally-obligated-to-maintain-parents-in-law-allahabad-hc
Trending Judiciary
Daughter-in-Law Not Legally Obligated to Maintain Parents-in-Law: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court rules daughter-in-law not liable to maintain parents-in-law under BNSS; moral obligation not legally enforceable.

30 March, 2026 05:49 PM

TOP STORIES

privacy-vs-prohibition-sc-to-examine-legality-of-breathalyser-based-enforcement-in-bihar
Trending Judiciary
Privacy vs Prohibition: SC to Examine Legality of Breathalyser-Based Enforcement in Bihar

Supreme Court to examine legality of breathalyser tests under Bihar Prohibition law, raising key issues on privacy, evidence, and Article 21 rights.

25 March, 2026 06:14 PM
sc-reverses-high-court-acquittal-in-child-rape-case-directs-all-high-courts-to-strictly-follow-ban-on-disclosure-of-victims-identity
Trending Judiciary
SC Reverses High Court Acquittal In Child Rape Case; Directs All High Courts To Strictly Follow Ban On Disclosure Of Victim’s Identity [Read Judgment]

SC restores conviction in child rape case, reverses acquittal, and directs strict compliance with law prohibiting disclosure of victim identity.

26 March, 2026 02:05 PM
allahabad-hc-grants-anticipatory-bail-to-swami-avimukteshwaranand-saraswati-in-pocso-case-rules-section-29-presumption-not-applicable-at-pre-arrest-stage
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in POCSO Case, Rules Section 29 Presumption Not Applicable at Pre-Arrest Stage [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, rules Section 29 POCSO presumption not applicable at pre-arrest stage.

26 March, 2026 02:25 PM
karnataka-hc-quashes-fir-against-sri-sri-ravi-shankar-in-bengaluru-land-encroachment-case
Trending Judiciary
Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Bengaluru Land Encroachment Case

Karnataka HC quashes FIR against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in Bengaluru land encroachment case, holding no direct role and limiting relief to him alone.

26 March, 2026 03:00 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email