Skip to main content

What makes India a republic

 72 years passed: What makes India a Republic

By Shreya Verma 

Our constitution declared India to be a 'democratic republic' but before we start as to what makes India a republic let's understand what is meant by the word Republic. Derived from the Latin word res publica, which means ‘public affairs’, republic means that form of government in which the state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Is different from direct democracy which is like in direct democracy citizens do not government State directly rather in a Republic, citizens are governed by their representatives whom they elect through direct or indirect elections.

The concept of Republic is not new however its meaning though have evolved. Is Defined by the French political philosopher Jean Bodin in his work " six books of the Commonwealth" as, "the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, bieng a sovereign power." this definition however changed when in 17th century the American Revolution (1775 - 83) and the French Revolution (1787-89) a resistence was made to the absolutist regimes and Republic got the meaning as a form of government, distinguished from a monarchy, where the leader is appointed under the constitution. But it got popularity only in 20th century when monarchy was finally given up by most of the nations worldwide. As defined now, “republic is a form of government in which representatives are entitled to act on behalf of the people whom they represent.” A total number of 159 worlds Sovereign states use the word Republic as part of their official names. Like the People's Republic of China, Republic of Korea, Saka Republic, Republic of Congo, however, not each of them adheres to the strict meaning of the word Republic in a sense of being governed by an elected government.

A republic is a form of government generally defined by three characteristics:

  1. The power of government is held by the people;

  2. The people give power to leaders by electing the officials who represent them and serve their interests; and

  3. Citizens and their representatives are to work cooperatively to promote the common good rather than their own interests.

Now, let's find out as to what makes India a Republic-

India on 26 January, 1950 adopted and enacted its constitution and by way of it, it declared itself to be a democratic republic. Democratic Republic is that form of government where the state functions on the principles of republics as well as democracies, meaning thereby, it refers to that form of Government where people directly participate in the decisions that affect the way the country works. India is called a republic as the representatives are elected by the people of the country. The representatives elected by citizens have the power to take decisions on our behalf. In India there exist an elected head of state, i.e., the President. 

In India, the President is the elected head of state. It is called a Republic because the people of the country elect their representatives. And these representatives have the power to make decisions on the behalf of those people, thus making India an amalgamation of Republic and democracy.

References
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more