In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a petition that sought explicit clarifications of the terms used in the preamble of the Indian Constitution. On Wednesday, the bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, explicitly stated that interpreting the preamble’s wording is not within their jurisdiction.
The petitioner, Shivam Mishra, had argued that certain terms in the preamble, such as ‘fraternity’, were ambiguous and hard to understand in their current context. Mishra expressed his distress over the potential implications of these ambiguities on his understanding of the constitution.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court remarked, “Your arguments are unclear. You’ve stated that you would be aggrieved if no relief is granted. However, it is not the court’s role to interpret these terms as you’ve requested.”
The term ‘fraternity’ in the constitution implies a spirit of brotherhood, ensuring both the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. This interpretation is also bolstered by historical insights from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s seminal speech ‘Annihilation of Caste’ and discussions within the Constituent Assembly, notably by member K.M. Munshi.
