'Supreme Court never said the Preamble can't be amended'

'Has the Supreme Court ever said that the Preamble is the basic structure of the Constitution?'

Former bureaucrat turned Bharatiya Janata Party MP Alphons Kannanthanam -- better known as K J Alphons -- opened a pandora's box when he introduced a private member's bill in the Rajya Sabha proposing to amend the Preamble of the Constitution.

One of the words in the Preamble Alphons wants to change is 'socialist' as he is of the opinion that socialism has lost its meaning now!

There was protest from the Opposition in the Upper House, and Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha said an amendment to the Preamble is an attack on the very edifice of the Constitution.

K J Alphons tells Rediff.com's Shobha Warrier why he wants changes to the Preamble of the Constitution. The concluding segment of a two-part interview:

• Part I: 'Socialism doesn't mean anything to people now'

What are the other changes you want to see in the Preamble?

Another change I have proposed is instead of 'equality of status and of opportunities', we should have 'equality of status and of opportunity to be born, to be fed, to be educated, to get a job and to be treated with dignity'.

How many people in India agree when you say everybody has equal opportunities? Except for a few rich people in India, how many can afford and make their way up?

How many people have the opportunity to good education, good food and even the right to be born?

Look at the sex ratio in this country. Do we allow the girl child to be born in this country?

So, I expanded on what 'equality of status and opportunity', an empty word to something with more substance.

I also proposed to change the words 'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation' to 'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the community and the unity and integrity of the nation'. I have added that the dignity of the community is also very important.

Then, happiness. I have borrowed the idea of 'gross domestic happiness' from the Bhutanese constitution and I said, we as a nation also needs to be happy. (In the World Happiness Report 2020, India was ranked 144 out of 156 countries).

I don't think there is anything objectionable in what I have suggested as they have so much more meaning.

The Opposition's objection is that the Preamble is sacrosanct and should not be amended.

If it makes sense, why should we not amend it? The Supreme Court has never said that the Preamble cannot be amended.

Secondly, the Preamble has been amended before.

It is said that in the 1973 Supreme Court verdict in Kesavanada Bharati vs the State of Kerala, the Court had said that Parliament could not change the basic structure of the Constitution...

That is exactly what I am saying. Has the Supreme Court ever said that the Preamble is the basic structure of the Constitution? No.

The Preamble is only a part of the basic structure. The basic structure is what without which the country cannot survive.

I have only loaded more sense into some terminologies which already exist, making it more contemporary. The amendments I have suggested will not change anything.

What you have proposed is a private member's bill. Does your party know this, or you did it only at the individual level?

When you introduce a private member's bill, you don't necessarily consult the party. I don't think that is the procedure.

I had filed this bill six months ago. It is the Parliament secretariat which takes it up. Any member who wants to read a private member's bill, it would be available on the Parliament Web site. There is nothing secretive about a private member's bill.

There are not many cases of Parliament ever approving aa private member's bills, whether they are from the ruling party or the other side.

If you look at the numbers, there are more private member's bills coming from the ruling party than the Opposition.

So, you introduced the bill to have a debate on what you have proposed?

When a private member's bill is introduced, nobody has the hope of getting it approved.

Frankly, there is no realistic chance of a private member's bill getting approved in Parliament.

The whole idea behind a private member's bill is to have a healthy discussion on the issue proposed in Parliament.

If the House gets enlightened after a discussion, it is good.

And if the idea reaches out to people through Parliament, it is even more good.

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com