We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-pils-delete-secular-socialist-constitutions-preamble
Joint property ownership and income redistribution may be contentious aspects which aren't part of our framework. Nonetheless, be it out of a rare goodness or vote bank politics, socialism is societally ingrained and co-exists with capitalism. Not taking any sides, just clarifying something.
Government does stuff =/= socialism.
Not attacking anyone, just mentioning how different the understanding of socialism is from what actual socialism entails.
That’s part of the constitutional schema. It is supposed to be changed as and when there is consensus to change it.
What do you think basic structure is ? Do you think it’s a good thing for unelected judges to decide for elected representatives what they may and may not legislate upon ? The only way for the BSD to survive ( given it was invented whole cloth by the judiciary) is for them to be very very cautious about stopping the legislators from enacting the will of the people , even for constitutional amendments. Those are the rules of the game.
LW trolls are at least try to be articulate.. RW are pragya thakur level
It's clear they don't really care about it, and the preamble just reflects the values of the constitution. Socialism and Secularism are definitely values enshrined in the constitution, adding the words or removing them makes no difference.
As for reality, well India has been really been a socialist country in any meaningful way. Digirism is what describes India's economy best pretty 1991, not socialist. Neither India has been completely secular (impossible to even be secular considering how deeply religious this country is).
Sanghis like to pretend Indira Gandhi did a big coupe or something but it's really not that deep.
People who say India become socialist or secular just cause of the preamble maybe should redo law school. Literally first year stuff lol.