She was walking on the ground,
For she was not able to fly.
I took her from where I found,
For she didn’t deserve to die.
Now she is safe and sound,
For kindness is worth a try.
Cartooning Is Not A Crime, But Violent Reaction To It, Is.
‘But’ is a word used to show conjunction, that is to connect two parts of sentences somehow contradictory to each other. Let me illustrate the use of ‘but’ with the headline of a news report about the subject of this article: Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemns France attacks but says free speech has limits.
Free speech has limits? Of course it does. But the real question is not about the limits, but about who can set the limit and who can deal with ‘transgressions’. As this article is about an unfortunate and condemnable incident that happened in France, we ought to read the French Constitution first.
Article 10 and 11 of the Declaration of 1789 explicitly provides that: No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order. The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.
So it is the law which determines whether a person has abused his precious right of free speech and expression. A competent judicial authority has to decide whether a cartoon of a historic personality, considered as a prophet by many persons, is an abuse of such free speech rights or not. If such an authority finds that it is an abuse and violation of an existing law, it can impose a penalty as prescribed by law. The point is simply this: A person has a right to speech and expression and the limits can only be set by law and the transgressions of such limits can only be penalized only by following the procedure established by law. That is to say, the question of limit and transgression is between the speaker and the state. The speaker’s right qua third person (or a group of persons) is absolute.
My research about ‘Free Speech’ took me to a judgment rendered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (while he was a Delhi HC Judge) in 2008. The judge made many pertinent observations in his judgment quashing summons issued to MF Hussain by various courts in complaints filed by people ‘aggrieved’ by his nude Bharat Mata painting. The judge said that ‘there should be freedom for the thought we hate’. People’s thoughts should not be curtailed by the age old moral sanctions of a particular section in the society having oblique or collateral motives who express their dissent at the every drop of a hat, the judge had observed in the judgment.
The terrorist act, i.e the act of beheading, for whatever motive, is a brutal and barbaric crime. Adding a ‘but’ in a sentence condemning such crimes, is nothing but condoning it in disguise. The Indian reaction condemning the France attacks which had no ‘but’ word in it, is commendable and worth emulating.
However, in some parts of India, there were protests held against France’s reaction to the terrorist act. I was taken aback when I read a post on this issue by a facebook friend of mine. According to him, drawing cartoons of the prophet is an unpardonable crime according to Shariah. One person asked him whether Shariah is applicable in France to which he said: Shariah is applicable to the whole world. It is the law of Allah.! I responded to this argument by pressing the unfriend option.
Many people have expressed outrage about the cartoons, saying that the attacker was provoked due to it. If there were no cartoons, there would have been no beheading, that is the logic they peddle. Aghast to see how religion blinds them.
A person has the right to mock at something or someone which he thinks should be mocked at. That something may be an ‘idea’ or ‘ideology’ or a ‘religion’ or a ‘belief’ and that someone may be a ‘god’, a ‘prophet’ or a historical or living leader or a personality. The act of ridiculing is not a crime, but reacting to it violently undoubtedly is. We should condemn the cartoon-phobic religionists who condone the violence in the name of religious sentiments (directly and indirectly with ifs and buts).
Supreme Court’s Ahuja Judgment & Women’s Right To Residence
Last week, a friend on twitter asked me to explain what the Supreme Court has held in Ahuja judgment. He also required me to avoid legal jargons. This is my attempt to explain what the Supreme Court held in Ahuja judgment in ‘simple English’.
First things first. We should know about the Domestic Violence Act and the right of residence. I shall explain with an illustration: W is a woman and M is a man. W and M get married. W, like many other married women in India, leaves her parental home and starts to reside with M. Now the illustration splits to two scenarios:
Scenario 1: House belonging to Husband
Suppose M owns a house and they start living there after marriage. After some years, their relationship gets strained. M starts to behave cruelly towards W and asks her to leave his house. This is where Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act becomes relevant. It states that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Husband- wife relationship is one type of domestic relationship. Shared household, for the purpose of this illustration, means the place where W lives or has lived with the husband. This right to reside in the husband’s house can be claimed and enforced by filing a Domestic Violence Act.
Scenario II: House not belonging to Husband
Suppose W and M start living in the house owned by M’s father, i.e W’s Father in Law. After some years, the relationship between them gets strained and M or M’s father asks W to leave the house. If we apply the dictum in 2006 Batra judgment [which adopted restricted interpretation of ‘Shared Household’], W cannot claim right to residence. What the Supreme Court’s three judge bench has held now is this: This restrictive interpretation was not warranted. Shared household, does not exclude from it the property of relatives of the husband [who can also be respondents in a domestic violence complaint]. The court has also made it clear that the living of the woman in the house should not be just a short stay. Woman can claim right to residence in a house where she lived (with a certain permanency) with her husband, even if the said house is not owned by him, but by his father or relatives.
Ahuja Overruled Batra
In fact, there is nothing controversial or new in this judgment except that it overruled a restricted interpretation. Definition of ‘Shared household’ in Domestic violence Act is quite exhaustive.
Ahuja judgment has neither stated anything new nor created a new right for women. It merely restated what the Domestic Violence Act already says. The significance of this judgment is that it overruled a restrictive interpretation made by a two judge bench in 2006. The 2006 Batra judgment was a ‘convenient excuse’ tool for the ‘respondents’ against ‘aggrieved person’. Husbands used to rely on this judgment to say that since they do not own the house, the wife cannot claim right to reside in the house.
In Ahuja case, the father in law filed a suit against daughter in law. He wanted the court to pass a mandatory injunction directing her to remove herself and her belonging from the house owned by him. Relying on Batra judgment, he claimed that since the house doesn’t belong to his son ( husband of aggrieved person), she could not claim right to residence. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The High Court set it aside, but remanded the case back to trial court with some directions. Now, the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court judgment and while doing so, it overruled the 2006 Batra judgment.
Misreporting Of Ahuja judgment
Some media reports have extrapolated and misreported what the Supreme Court has said in Ahuja judgment. A news report about the judgment ought to highlight what the court has actually said and not the consequences or interpretation of the judgment. Such interpretation about the implications of a court ruling can be made by writing articles and columns on it. But a news should contain facts and only fact.
I read one Malayalam news article which reported this judgment like this: Divorced wife can claim her right to residence in In-Laws House. The fact is that the supreme court has nowhere in this judgment said something even close to it. But when I did a small research, I realize that there is a scope for such an argument. I have discussed about it in this column in LiveLaw.In.
Misuse of Domestic Violence Act
Just like many other laws, Domestic Violence Act is also prone to misuse. It is a fact that this legislation has been used by women involved in matrimonial litigation as a supplementary tactic. But we should not forget the fact that this legislation was brought to protect basic rights of the women in the place where she lives. Such rights ought to be respected and honoured.
Idioms In Judgments
I have always found the idioms interesting. Be it while studying English in school and colleges, or later while watching news channels, idioms fascinated me. Idiom is a phrase, saying or a group of words that has a metaphorical (not literal) meaning.
Many years ago, when I was a college student, I used to hear news presentation by Rajdeep Sardesai. He used to (I think he still does) say ‘at the end of the day’, very often while concluding his show. When I heard it first, I took it literally, because I thought that he is saying so because he was wrapping up the show at night. But once I heard him saying amidst a discussion about a discussion about election results. Curious, I searched for the meaning of the expression and found that it means ‘when everything is taken into consideration.’
Last week, while reading an order passed by Justice RF Nariman led bench, I came across an expression ‘attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole.’ One cannot fit a square peg into a round hole. a person in a position, situation, etc. for which he or she is unsuited or unqualified. The judges have used this expression to denote the unsuitableness of the contention raised. Attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole [or vice versa] means trying to do something which is impossible.
Another idiom I came across recently is from a judgment of United Kingdom Supreme Court authored by Lord Burrows. He said that “two bites of the cherry” approach by the Divisional Court was incorrect. The question was whether the petitioner has ‘only one bite of cherry’ or was entitled to ‘second bite of cherry’. It means a second chance or opportunity.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied Illustrated
Justice delayed is justice denied is an oft quoted adage. But if one has to understand the depth of this saying, it needs to be illustrated. The following some recent judgments/orders of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Last week, the Orissa High Court disposed of a writ petition filed before it in 2010. That writ petition was filed by a man aggrieved by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal order dismissing his petition filed in 1995 challenging his termination. This man cleared all the hurdles to get appointment as a constable. During his training, it was discovered that his height was 1 cm less than the requisite height. Even before he could complete the training, he was served with an order discharging him from service. Now, vide judgment passed last week, the Orissa High Court has directed his reinstatement. If the authorities don’t challenge this order, this man would continue his training and would become a constable.
Of course, it is better to be late than never. But the precious years lost due to this avoidable delays can never be compensated.
Another illustration is from a Supreme Court judgment delivered last week. In that case, the Trial court convicted a murder accused. The High Court upheld his conviction. Before the Apex court, he raised the plea of juvenility. He contended that he was less than 18 years at the time of commission of offence. The Supreme Court, scanning the provisions of three juvenile justice laws, confirmed his conviction, but set aside the life imprisonment and order ed the Juvenile Justice Board to decide the matter. Had the High Court not delayed matter this long, he would’ve by now served the life imprisonment he deserved as per the law applicable to him at that time. Justice was denied to the victim, in this case, due to delay.
It is disheartening to note that criminal proceedings pertaining to a crime of 1992 is yet to attain finality, whether it be by reason of providence or design, the Kerala High Court recently remarked while disposing a petition filed by the accused in Sister Abhaya Murder Case to defer the Trial.
Small Joys Of Reading Judgments
Ever since I started writing for Live Law, I am reading judgments, especially that of the Supreme Court, on a daily basis. I have often boasted that I will be one among the first persons who read a Supreme Court judgment after it gets uploaded every day.
Reading judgments, especially by Judges who possess a good command over language and the subject they deal with, has many benefits for the readers. One obvious advantage of reading them is that it will help one to enhance the legal knowledge. The court delivers judgment on multifarious issues involving many laws of the land. Most judgment discusses the basic law involved, and therefore, while reading them, we also learn it.
Apart from this, some judgments can improve our General Knowledge and some others can enhance our literary acumen. Through this blog post, I am sharing my recent learning experiences.
In the judgment quashing Gujarat Government notification extending work hours under Factories Act without overtime pay, Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (who authored it), discusses about Emergency.
“An emergency was declared for the first time in 1962 due to the Chinese aggression on Indian territory. The emergency was revoked in 1968. In 1971, when hostilities broke out with Pakistan, an emergency was proclaimed by the President on the ground that the security of India was threatened by external aggression. While this proclamation was in force, another proclamation was issued by the President on 25 June 1975 declaring that a “grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened by ‘internal disturbance’.” Both these proclamations were revoked in March 1977.”
Before reading this, I was under an impression (blame my poor GK) that, the emergency was declared only in 1975 during the reign of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This judgment made me know that India has seen such declaration thrice and that the 1975 emergency proclamation was issued while the 1971 proclamation was still in force.
I decided to write this blog post after I learnt something from a judgment authored by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman today.
This made me learn that the origin of popular idiom ‘wash one’s hands of’ is attributed to Pontius Pilate’s washing his hands before having Jesus put to death, saying “I am innocent of the blood of this just person”. This made me curious about the context, and thus I googled “Matthew 27:24.”
Jesus was brought before the then Roman Governor. It was a ‘festival day’ and there was governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. The Governor asked the crowd whether to release one Jesus Barabbas, a prisoner and a murder convict, and Jesus who is called the Messiah. The crowd asked him to release Barabbas and crucify the christ. He he took water, and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just person’.
“Wash your hands off” thus means to say or show that you do not want to be involved with someone or something and that you are not responsible for them.
Thoughts on Shaheen Bagh Judgment: Right To Protest vs. Right to Move Freely
Today’s Supreme Court judgment on Shaheen Bagh protests made me remember about a journey experience last year. Myself and my family were returning home after a tour to malabar. When we reached a place near Thrissur, we saw a huge crowd on the road. After sometime, we were in the middle of a sea of people and the car could not move. There were no traffic police to control the crowd which were there in connection with a temple festival. About forty five minutes, we had to stay in car witnessing the tide of crowd. I started thinking.
As a lawyer and a student of constitutional law, Article 19(1)(d) came to my mind. As per the said provision, all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India?
Am I a citizen? I asked myself. Yes ! I was born in India and therefore I am citizen by birth. Also, the place where I was struck is inside Indian territory. Therefore, this provision recognizes my right to move freely. But in reality, I cannot. Of course, this right is subject to the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. But is there any such law which restricts my movement at this place? No. So I concluded that my fundamental right has been infringed, not by the state, but by a mob.
While I was indulging myself in constitutional thoughts, a police officer started shouting from behind. We were all inside the car. I took down the window, to hear what he was yelling. “You cannot go ahead this way. This crowd will be here till midnight. If you want to move, take this long but narrow route.”, he said.
We had no other option but to accept his advice. Our driver shifted to reverse gear and took the car about 30 metres backwards, thanks to police officer who controlled the crowd. The alternative path was a long route, but we managed to reach back home before midnight.
As stated in the beginning, the Supreme Court judgment in Shaheen Bagh case reminded me about this incident. Today, the Supreme Court observed that occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.
Initially when the news broke in the morning, I thought the judgment would run to many pages. But it is only a 13 paged judgment. One lesson I learnt from this judgment is that the length of an essay is not an indicator of its quality. The judgment, authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, is brief, but quite loaded.
Right to protest, is traceable to two articles of Constitution Firstly, 19(1)(a) to freedom of speech and expression; Secondly, 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms. One can protest against anything under the sun, that is a fundamental right. The protest can be through speech and by other means. When there are a group of protestors, they have the fundamental right to protest albeit peacefully and without arms. This fundamental right is further subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.
The peculiarity of Shaheen Bagh case is this. The protestors blocked a public way, build tents across the road, to protest against a law enacted by the Parliament. The Government did not yield to protest and the stalemate continued, thereby affecting the fundamental right of citizens as they were not able to pass through the said area. No one infringed the right to protestors at Shaheen Bagh. But inaction of the state to remove the obstacles placed on public pathway, indirectly infringed the fundamental right of movement of people.
This judgment, I believe, addresses the concerns arising out of conflict of rights. Many those who supported Shaheen Bagh movement, have expressed their outrage against this judgment. I feel such criticisms are quite misplaced.
X claims fundamental right to protest by blocking public way. Y claims fundamental right to movement through that public way. X blocking Y is infringement of his fundamental right. The state has a positive duty to protect the fundamental right of Y from being infringed by X. In doing so, state can ask X to shift his protest site to somewhere else. In doing so, State is not infringing X’s right to protest, but protecting Y’s right to movement. This is what the Supreme Court has held.
Further, it should be noted that right to assemble is qualified by the term ‘peaceably’. Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the word ‘peaceably’ as ‘free from strife or disorder’. The very idea of blocking public road, is an act which amounts to disorder. Such a right of blocking public way in the name of protest cannot be traced to constitution.
India, That Is Bharat
Article 1(1) of the Constitution of India now reads as follows:
India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
India, that is Bharat
Article 1 of the Constitution of India defines the name of our nation. India, that is Bharat, it is how the Constitution defines our country.
Constituent Assembly Debates on India, that is Bharat
In the draft Constitution submitted to the Constituent Assembly, the suggestion was only ‘India’. After elaborate discussions, the Constituent Assembly on 18th September 1949, added Bharat also.
On 15th November 1948, a member of the Constituent Assembly moved an amendment seeking to substitute the word ‘India’ the word ‘Bharat (India)’ and for the word ‘States’ the word’ Provinces’.
Thereafter, the matter came up for discussion after an year later on 17th September 1949. Dr BR Ambedkar moved an amendment seeking to change Article 1 (1) to ‘India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.’
This amendment came up for discussion the following day. HV Kamath suggested a further change to Article 1(1): ‘(1) Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.’ ” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.’”
HV Kamath, who termed the discussion as Namakaran or a naming ceremony, said that suggestions have come that the country should be named as Bharat, Hindustan, Hind or Bharatbhumi or Bharatvarsh. Kamath concluded by stating that the construction of this clause “India, that is, Bharat” is a clumsy one.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani suggestion was to name the country as ‘Union of Republics of India or Union of Socialist Republic of India’.
Seth Govind Das, though expressed his satisfaction to see the Country named as Bharat, said that he was unhappy with the expression ‘ “India, that is, Bharat”’. According to him it should have been “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”.
“By naming our country as Bharat we are not doing anything which will prevent us from marching forward. We should indeed give such a name to our country as may be befitting our history and our culture. It is a matter of great pleasure that we are today naming our country as Bharat.”, he said.
“We fought the battle of freedom under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi by raising the slogan of “Bharat Mata Ki Jai”. It is a matter for pleasure that we are going to do a correct thing today. But I would like to say that we are not doing it in a beautiful way. Why whatever way we may do it, our country is going to get the name of Bharat. I am confident that when our Constitution will be framed in the national language this name of Bharat will occupy its rightful place. I am very much pleased to note that whatever manner it may be, the name Bharat is being given to our country. I heartily congratulate the Constituent Assembly on it.”, he added.
Members Kala Venkata Rao and BM Gupta and Shri Ram Sahai also spoke in support of the name ‘Bharat’.
Kamalapathi Tripathi said that it was more proper to use the words “Bharat, that is, India”, “I am enamoured of the historic name of “Bharat”. Even the mere uttering of this word, conjures before us by a stroke of magic the picture of cultured life of the centuries that have ,One by. In my opinion there is no other country in the world which has such a history, such a culture, and such a name, whose age is counted in milleniums as our country has. There is no country in the world which has been able to preserve its name and its genius even after undergoing the amount of repression, the insults and prolonged slavery which our country had to pass through. Even after thousands of years our country is still known as ‘Bharat’. Since Vedic times, this name has been appearing in our literature. Our Puranas have all through eulogised the name of Bharat. The gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens.”, he added.
As Tripathi continued to narrate the history and significance of the name ‘Bharat’, Dr. Ambedkar interrupted him and asked: Is this all necessary, Sir ? Tripathi then concluded by congratulating Dr. Ambedkar for including ‘Bharat’ as the name of the Country.
Har Govind Pant reminded the House that he had moved an amendment suggesting that the word “Bharat” or “Bharat Varsha” should be substituted in place of ‘India’. He expressed his reservation against naming the Country as India thus: “So far as the word ‘India’ is concerned, the Members seem to have, and really I fail to understand why, some attachment for it. We must know that this name was given to our country by foreigners who having heard of the riches of this land were tempted towards it and had robbed us of our freedom in order to acquire the wealth of our country. If we, even then, cling to the word ‘India’, it would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers. Really, I do not understand why we are accepting this word.”
Finally, the Constituent assembly voted for Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment and named the Country as India, that is Bharat.
On November 15th, HV Kamath again raised the issue about Article 1. According to him, a comma between the word ‘that is’ and Bharat would make it perfect. However, this amendment stood rejected.
Teacher
It was my first day at school,
I was holding hand of my mom,
Tensed I was, but looked so cool.
I preferred to spend time at home.
When the teacher came near,
I saw her as a total stranger.
She told me: “Do not fear”,
“I am like your mother.”
I stood at classroom threshold.
Teacher pulled me from inside,
“Don’t leave me alone”, I told,
To my mother, standing outside.
Today am grateful to that teacher,
For pulling me in to this new world,
Where knowledge is the real power,
Which made me strong and bold.
Thankful to all mentors I have got,
For their lessons and wise thought,
For everything you have taught,
Dear teachers, I owe you a lot.
Konkani’s Entry To Constitution Of India
On 20th August 1992, both the houses of Indian Parliament passed a bill which amended Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India to include three languages including the one which is my mother tongue. To commemorate this, Konkani Manyata Diwas is celebrated every year by Konkani speaking community spread across India.
Before proceeding to the topic which I intend to discuss through this piece, I would like to share a few memories I have on my mother tongue.
I was born and brought up in a family in Ernakulam District of Kerala State which spoke only in Konkani. When I reached tenth standard, I was given an application form to fill. The said form contained a column on mother tongue. I took the form to my Grandfather and asked him: Should I write Konkani or Malayalam?
What is the language of your mother ? He counter questioned me. Konkani, I replied him. He explained to me that the country and language you are born into, are like your mother and that is why they are called motherland and mother tongue. Highly convinced with this explanation, I filled the form with pride.
Later, I joined Sacred Heart College for my plus two course. Unlike earlier, I had only a few Konkani speaking friends. As I have narrated earlier, my Malayali friends used to feel that we were speaking an argot. One day, he asked me whether Konkani has a lipi like Malayalam. I remembered Mallyamam who had once told me about the Konkani presence in currency notes:
See for yourself, Konkani can be seen just above Malayalam, I told my friend. But he did not relent. He asked me it is same as Hindi. Though I tried to convince him that Konkani, like Hindi and Sanskrit uses Devanagari lipi, he remained obdurate.
Mallyamam, Sri. Narayana Purushothama Mallaya, about whom I mentioned earlier, is our family friend and now my wife’s grandfather (minnaabu). He used to visit our home once or twice an year. He used to speak about his meetings with our former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. I, then a teenager, used to sit on the floor keenly listening to his narration about his experience of his struggle to get Konkani recognized as a language in the eighth schedule of the Constitution of India.
Years passed by and I reached Law College. That was when I first read the Constitution of India, though I had studied briefly about it during school days. Articles 343 to 351 of the Constitution deals with languages including official languages: Hindi and English. Eighth Schedule of the Constitution lists 22 languages. I realized Mallyamam’s greatness when I spotted Konkani in the list of 22 languages.
Now I shall come to the topic which I propose to deal with: About the passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill to amend the Eighth Schedule.
The Eighth Schedule, before 71st Amendment, had only 15 languages. (14 in original Constitution and Sindhi was added in 1967 by a constitutional amendment). Thanks to archives available online, I could trace the discussions that took place that day when Shri.S.B. Chauhan, who was the then Home Minister, introduced the bill.
Before the Bill was introduced, BJP Leader LK Advani said: “Mr. Speaker, Sir, yesterday, Members of all the parties stressed the need of bringing forward a Bill before the end of this session for inclusion of Manipur, Nepali and Konkani languages in the Eighth Schedule. We are prepared to consider the case of other languages with an open mind but there should be no delay in respect of these three languages. In the list of business for today there is mention of 6 Bills but not of this Bill. Yesterday we agreed that if there is a need to waive of any rule for this the House is prepared for that. We should waive it If there is a need of It today because the session of the other House is about to end. This Bill should be passed by both the Houses of Parliament. This is my submission.”
While introducing the bill, Chauhan said: ” After taking all aspects into consideration, included the consensus arrived at in the deliberations with the leaders of political parties, It is proposed that the Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali languages should be included in the Eighth Schedule…..I am sure this august House will agree that through the introduction of this Bill, we have taken a step towards meeting the aspirations of the people speaking the
Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali languages.”
The Bill was then put to vote:
Though some members of the House raised concerns about many other languages not included in the schedule, 343 members present in the Lok Sabha unanimously voted for the Amendment Bill. On the same day, Rajya Sabha also passed the Bill unanimously:
Objects and Reasons of the Bill state that there have been demands for inclusion of languages including Konkani in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. The Bill received assent of the President of India on 31st August 1992 and it was published in the Official Gazette of India on 1st September 1992:
Earlier I used to show the Currency notes to those who questioned the ‘status’ of my mother tongue. Since I became a student of law, I am showing them the Constitution.
The entire Constitution of India (amended up-to year 2002) is available in Konkani. See below the screenshot of the page featuring Preamble:
nationalizer 