Today i have filed a criminal complaint (pfa) with the 8th ACCM, Bangalore on the following subject: The removal of the words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ from the Preamble of the Constitution of India in the official advertisement of DAVP, Ministry of I & B, Govt. of India on Republic Day of 2015 was not only a brazen attack on the esteem and integrity of the Constitution of India but also a clear violation of the criminal law provision of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY AT BANGALORE
P.C.R. NO. _ of 2015
Sri SIDDHARTH SHARMA
S/o. Late Sita Sharan Sharma
Address : Lok Swaraj Manch
‘Ramjai’ # 2, 2nd Cross Chanakya Street,
Akkamma Block, Dinnur, RT Nagar
Bangalore 560032 …COMPLAINANT
Sri BIMAL JULKA
Secretary to Govt. of India
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-1110001
Sri K. GANESAN
Director General of Advertising and Visual Publicity
DAVP, 5th Floor, Soochana Bhawan, Phase IV,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
* * *
UNDER SECTIONS 190 AND 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , r/w Section 156 (3), CRPC, the complainant above named most humbly submits as follows:
That the addresses of the parties to these proceedings for the purpose of service of process of this Hon’ble Court are as shown in the cause title. The Complainant may also be served through his advocate Sri NITIN.R, whose full office address is given hereinbelow. That the complainant is the National Convenor, Lok Swaraj Manch (LSM) founded by Gandhiji’s associate, Prof Thakur Das Bang. LSM is a pan-India institution of individuals who strongly advocate transition to participatory democracy. He is also the Vice-President, Anuvrat Mahasamiti, an international institution of Moral Values, a founder-member of Pragatisheel Bramha Samaj, a forum of intellectuals, one of the Founder Members of the Aam Aadmi Party. He is also the Vice- President, Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyapith, a 50 year old education institution, a Co-Promoter of Citizens’ Forum Against Corruption, Karnataka’s citizen anti-corruption initiative and a Former Hon. Secretary, Gandhi Peace Foundation, Bangalore. He was also an active volunteer in the Jan Lokpal movement by India Against Corruption (IAC) led by Sri Anna Hazareji.
The complainant humbly submits that the accused have violated the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 on account of deliberate and brazen publication of advertisement on Republic Day this year in all major National and Vernacular newspapers in the country. A copy of one such original advertisement that appeared in the popular Kannada daily, Vijaya Karnataka dated 26/1/2015 is herewith produced as DOCUMENT no.1. The same advertisement is freely available online and a copy of the internet edition also is herewith produced as DOCUMENT no.2.
The news paper advertisement was/is in gross contempt of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it depicts the Preamble of the Constitution as stating that India is only a, ‘SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC’, even though the Preamble unequivocally and explicitly states in bold that India is a ‘SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC’. The Preamble is not only applicable and binding on the ordinary citizens of India but also upon the Functionaries/Public Servants working within the government system.
The ultimate arbiter of the Constitution of India viz., the Honourable Supreme Court of India has categorically held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and not a separate text in itself.
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti (AIR 1973 SC 1461) stated as follows:
“Reference to the debates of the Constituent Assembly shows that there was considerable discussion in the said Assembly on the provisions of the Preamble. A number of amendments were moved and were rejected. A motion was thereafter adopted by the Constituent Assembly that “the Preamble stands part of the Constitution” (see Constituent Assembly debates, Vol. X, p. 429-456). There is, therefore, positive evidence to establish that the Preamble is a part of the Indian Constitution”.
In S R Bommai case(AIR 1994 SC 1918) SC held: “The preamble of the Constitution is an integral part of the Constitution.”
This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court even after the coming into force of 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India. The said 42nd amendment has not only stood the test of time but also the final scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India and it is not open either to the ordinary citizens or the public functionaries such as accused herein to rely on any other text of the Constitution of India (including the Preamble) than the text which binds one and all, as on date.
The Complainant further submits that both Secularism and Socialism have been treated as part of the basic structure as reflected in preamble of our Constitution and therefore neither the Preamble nor the concepts of Secularism and Socialism are open to semantical debates or whimsical interpretations by anyone including those mighty in the bureaucracy.
The Supreme Court in D S Nakara case((1983) I SCC 305) has settled that: “The principal aim of a socialist State is to eliminate inequality in income and status and standards of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and especially provide security from cradle to grave… It was such a socialist State which the Preamble directs the centers of power Legislative Executive and Judiciary-to strive to set up” and in Minerva Mills Ltd. case (AIR 1980 SC 1789) This is not mere semantics. The edifice of our Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallised in the Preamble. We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice-social, economic and political. We, therefore, put Part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved.” And in Praveenbhai Togadia case ((2004) 4 SCC 684) it was held: “Secularism has come to be treated as a part of fundamental law, and an unalienable segment of the basic structure of the country’s political system.”
The offence committed hereinabove is grave in nature apart from being offensive to the sensibilities of the concerned citizens of this country such as the complainant who hold the Constitution of India in high esteem and who are fearful of the country turning into a theocratic state.
The said commission of offence has not been in order to discharge any public duty for citizens but is patently offensive. Hence, there is no legal-technical bar to entertain this complaint.
Furthermore, the complainant humbly submits that some of the Cabinet Ministers and the Minister of Information and Broadcasting (I & B) of Govt. of India have justified the exclusion of the words, secularism and socialism from the Preamble of the Constitution, going by the reports in the responsible sections of the media. Hence, it requires to be investigated by the jurisdictional Police whether the advertisement was brought out on the formal directions of the political executive viz., the Minster for I & B etc. of the Government of India, in which case such persons shall also be equally culpable. The internet copy of a newspaper report dated 28/1/2015 quoting a Cabinet Minister, as above-said, is herewith produced as DOCUMENT no.3.
The above said offence has been committed in multiple jurisdictions in the country. This court also enjoys the jurisdiction to entertain this complainant and take cognizance of the offence mention herein since one such publication/distribution of defiling of Constitution of India happened through the advertisement by Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, GoI, in the issue of ‘VIJAYA KARNATAKA’ dated 26.01.2015, which was received and read by the complainant, his family and friends on the same day, in his above-mentioned address, which falls within the territorial limits where this Hon’ble Court can exercise the powers under law.
The acts and omissions of the accused herein are not civil wrongs but constitute deliberate omission and commission that attract the mischief that Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 seeks to curtail.
WHEREFORE, the Complainant in the above case most humbly prays this Hon’ble Court be pleased to refer the matter for investigation or secure the presence of the accused, as may be deemed fit, and deal with them in accordance with law, in the ends of justice.
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT
I, Siddharth Sharma, the complainant in the above matter, do hereby state on verification that, the statements made from para 1 to 14 of the memorandum of complaint are all true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.