Thread by @dikgaj

This is a blatant subversion of the sovereignty of people in being the final decision maker over its relationship with a state form the people are acknowledged to have created in the first place. The "basic structure" is a self-contradictory proposition.

https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1343162759492485120

Lets start with the implied theory of "original doctrine" - a la Abrahamic revelation. The claim of "basic structure" relies on the interpretation by a small group of individuals who are not answerable to the people - of an earlier document, to reconstruct an "orginal doctrine".

The very legitimacy claim for this "original doctrine" relies on legitimacy and primacy of whatever was done at a past historical point and rigid unchangeability of whatever supposedly was formulated at that past historical point.

If an unalterable "original doctrine" becomes imposable simply because it was stated in the past then the framers of that "original doctrine" wd hv explicitly stated it. The unalterable primacy argument holds then in reverse: if they didnt include it, it cannot be imagined later.

There is a technical fraud in the preamble declaration of the Constitution as it states "we the people of India" - but the people of India were neither consulted, nor was the Constitution ever given to ratification by referendum to full adult franchise:

while subsequent generations to the signatory generation of a "Constitution" are presumed to automatically have accepted it, the signatory generation have both an obligation as well as right to ratify any Constitution proposed. Bulk of the Indian popn wr cheated out of that right

even without that ratification, Constitution is clearly formally framed as something created and adopted by a particular population of a particular time. It had to limit its right to make it unchangeable as it had to recognize the people of a later time over its "Constitution".

Constitution is a contract between people, not a gift of permanent slavery to institutional authority, and definitely not a permanent slavery and doctrine of submission to individuals who are not directly answerable to the people.

Contrary to the claim made by judge Joseph, the framers of the Constitution obviously did not support non-interference in matters of religion and faith - it specifically, explicitly intervened in what it considered "Hindu".

Thus any "secular spirit" of Constitution, at least in the framers, was not about "non-intervention" in religion: but their intervening (as well as withdrawing the right of the Hindu to protect its interests while explicitly retaining it for "minorities") in specific religion.

The dishonesty in this discriminatory& opportunistic application of "secularism" is that this fundamental discrimination was never acknowledged to maintain the illusion of neutrality and "hands off" by state - presumably to justify its refusal to intervene in Islam or Xtianity.

The Constitution does not offer a "level playing field" for "all" religions: a fact that has been legally exploited to systematically intervene in Hindu religious, cultural facets while stubbornly resisting even modernization in other faith systems.

Judge Joseph did not dare add that "India does not belong to Islam or Xtian religions either" while blatantly declaring that India does not belong to the "Hindu". The negation of the "Hindu" seems to be the only spirit that has been distilled and relished from the Constitution.

If any dimwit jumps up to defend the statement claiming just because Judge Joseph omitted Islam/Xtian doesnt mean he supports India belongs to them: its the absence of similar stated "rights" in Consttn that has been legally interpreted to imply that Hindus don't hv such rights.

the arcane abstruseness of legal linguistics, devotedly maintained from colonial masters, can one day be used to claim that since Islam/Xtianity was explicitly excluded from list of religions to which India does not belong - it implied India does belong to them.