While debating the glorious journey of 75 years of the Constitution, one should remember the words of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The committee headed by him examined the issue of minority rights and accordingly, Articles 25 to 30 were enacted in our Constitution. The underlying argument in these Articles is that individualistic universal rights are not of much use in a heterogeneous country such as India and that one needs to have discussions based on multiculturalism, difference, and the rights of minorities that mark contemporary political theory.
Individualistic rights under Articles 14-18 (equality), 19 (free speech), and 25 (freedom of religion) are not enough for the conservation of language, script, or culture which comes under Article 29. One may not be individually unjustly treated but it hurts if the group to which one belongs is subjected to ridicule or denied any value. This also undermines an individual’s right to dignity. An individual’s right to culture holds little meaning or significance, unless the community of which a person is a member of, or is identified with, is accorded the right to exist in a viable form.
In Keshavananda Bharati (1973), rights under Article 30 were held to be part of the basic structure which even Parliament cannot change through a constitutional amendment.
Most political leaders spoke about Ambedkar the architect of the Constitution of India. Recently, the Rajya Sabha held a 31-hour debate on the ‘Glorious journey of 75 years of the Constitution of India’. Union Home Minister Amit Shah claimed that the Congress had altered fundamental constitutional provisions for political gain, while the BJP focused on empowering citizens. Thus, the focus was on making and amendments to the Constitution, both the good, best, and worst from 1950. True the Constitution is not an immutable document, and Article 368 within the document allowed the changes. Both parties tried to list out their amendments, saying BJP has ruled for 16 years, and we made 22 amendments to the Constitution. Congress ruled for 55 years and made 77 changes. BJP is also proud of “the GST, granting constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes, 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections in education and government jobs, and restoring the power of State governments to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes.
The Congress repeatedly blocked efforts to bring in reservations for Other Backward Classes. “Twice under the Congress governments, the reservation was extended on religious lines. This is unconstitutional.” Whether the character of the Preamble and structure of the Constitution debated ‘secular’ or not when entire people are being polarised. The Congress Chief Whip Jairam Ramesh intervened saying that their party has never extended reservation on religious lines. The Home Minister explained that they supported the Common Civil Code.
Unfortunately, the whole debate is about alleging and condemning each other. What sparked within the House was the remark ‘that it had become a “fashion” for the party to chant Dr. Ambedkar’s name. “It has become a fashion to say ‘Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar’. If they had taken God’s name so many times, they would have got a place in heaven.”
Meanwhile, Trinamool staged a walkout, and Rajya Sabha leader Derek O’Brien’s MP submitted a privilege notice against Amit Shah. The PM said, “When it comes to Dr. Ambedkar, our respect and reverence are absolute.”
On X, Ms. Mamatha Banerjee posted a statement, alleging remarks displayed the BJP’s “casteist and anti-Dalit mindset”. “If this is how they behave after being reduced to 240 seats, imagine the damage they would’ve inflicted if their dream of 400 seats had been realized. They’d have rewritten history to entirely erase Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions”.
A seven-judge Bench in Aligarh Muslim University (2024) in unequivocal terms described Article 30 as a ‘facet of equality and non-discrimination’. A nine-judge Bench in St. Xavier’s College Society (1974) too had observed that “the whole object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection, they will be denied equality.”
Expanding the meaning of Article 30, the apex court said: In the re Kerala Education Bill (1957), the Supreme Court said that the dominant word in Article 30 is ‘choice’ and minorities can expand their choice as much as they want. The court also said that the term ‘educational institution’ includes universities. The courts have also been consistent in extending protection under Article 30 to pre-Constitution institutions in cases like S.K. Patro (1969), St. Stephens (1992), and Azeez Basha (1967). In the latest judgment of Aligarh Muslim University (2024), the majority has held that even an institution of national importance can claim minority character. Former Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in the Aligarh Muslim University (2024) case has laid down history.
The Parliament, like the judiciary, must protect the ‘basic structure’ of the Indian Constitution. One cannot escape from a simple debate by abusing each other, dharna, or boycotting. (The author is a Professor at Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
