Allahabad High Court sought response from the Centre.
Samvidhan Murder Day, The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Central Government on a PIL challenging the July 13 notification declaring June 25 as Constitution Murder Day. Hearing the PIL filed by Jhansi advocate Santosh Singh Dohre, a division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar sought a response from the Center and fixed the next hearing of the case on July 31.
As soon as the hearing on this case began on Monday, the Central Government’s advocate sought time to file a reply in this case, on which the court accepted his request. In this PIL, a demand has been made to cancel this notification published in the Gazette of India on July 13. In this notification, it is said that by imposing emergency on 25 June 1975, the then government violated the rights of the people.
The constitution is a living document
The petition argued that the notification issued by the Central Government directly violates the provisions of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the 1971 Act, which prevents insults to national honour. The petition said that the language used in this notification insults the Constitution of India because according to Article 2 of the 1971 Act, Parliament has declared that it is a crime to show disrespect to the Constitution by words, spoken or written. It said that the Emergency was imposed in 1975 under the provisions of the Constitution, so it is wrong for the respondents to declare June 25 as Constitution Hatya Diwas because the Constitution is a living document that can never die and no one can be allowed to destroy it.
Question on the validity of the notification
The petition also questions the rationale behind the notification issued by G. Parthasarathy, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, stating that as a senior officer of the Indian Administrative Service, Parthasarathy is bound to follow the directives of the Constitution of India. However, he issued this notification to curry favour with leaders in the Central Government and get important positions in the administration. The petition ultimately argues that all actions of the respondent (Centre) are required to be in the name of the President of India as per Article 77 of the Constitution of India. However, the said notification does not comply with Article 77. Thus, it is violative of Article 77.