Supreme Court Upholds ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Preamble, Dismisses 42nd Amendment Challenge

The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, November 25, dismissed petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

The court emphasized that these concepts have become integral to the constitutional framework and questioned the relevance of raising this challenge after 44 years.

Court’s Stance on the Delay

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar, questioned the justification for the delay in challenging the amendment.

“We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,” the bench observed. They added, “It has almost been so many years, why rake up the issue now?”

The bench elaborated that secularism and socialism are deeply rooted in the Constitution’s framework and represent essential facets of equality and public welfare.

Secularism as a Fundamental Principle

Highlighting the importance of secularism, the bench stated that it is a core element of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

“In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme’s pattern,” the court noted.

The court also clarified that secularism in India is distinct from the rigid separation of religion and state seen in some other countries. Instead, Indian secularism allows the state to engage in religious matters to ensure equality and fairness, particularly for minority communities.

Socialism in the Indian Context

On the inclusion of “socialism,” the court explained its relevance in achieving economic and social justice without restricting private enterprise.

“The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g),” the bench observed.

Justice Khanna further stated, “Socialism in India primarily signifies a welfare state. It has never hindered the private sector, which continues to thrive. The State’s focus is on public welfare and equality of opportunity.”

Parliament’s Power to Amend the Preamble

The court reiterated that under Article 368, Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, including its Preamble.

It dismissed the argument that the original Preamble’s adoption date of November 26, 1949, restricted Parliament’s ability to make retrospective amendments. “The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution,” the bench asserted.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” was inconsistent with India’s historical and cultural ethos. They claimed the amendment contradicted the concept of “Dharma,” which they described as distinct from religion and incompatible with Communist ideologies.

Additionally, they contended that secularism in India is applied inconsistently compared to other countries, citing the example of France, where a strict separation of religion and state is maintained.

The petitions also challenged provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which require political parties to pledge adherence to the principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy as a condition for registration.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of Arguments

The court rejected the petitions, asserting that secularism and socialism are intrinsic to India’s democratic and constitutional values. It noted that these principles have achieved widespread acceptance and reflect the aspirational goals of the Indian Constitution.

“These terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by ‘We, the people of India’ without any semblance of doubt,” the bench declared.

Observations on the Emergency Era Amendment

Addressing concerns about the amendment being introduced during the Emergency in 1976, the court referred to prior deliberations in Parliament, including discussions during the 44th Amendment in 1978. It concluded that the historical context did not undermine the validity or acceptance of the amendment over time.

Constitution as a Living Document

The bench reiterated that the Constitution is a living document, capable of evolving through amendments. While acknowledging that the Constituent Assembly did not initially include these terms, the court emphasized that their inclusion aligns with the principles of Articles 14, 15, and 16, which promote equality and non-discrimination.