Why Rake Up The Issue After 44 Years? SC upholds ‘secular, socialist’ in Preamble

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected at least three petitions seeking deletion of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

The words were inserted into the Preamble in 1976 by way of 42nd amendment when the national emergency was in force.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar said that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble as well. "The writ petitions do not require detailed adjudication as the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest. Two expressions—'secular' and 'socialist' and the word 'integrity' were inserted in the Preamble vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.

These amendments were made in 1976. Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution. The power to amend unquestionably rests with Parliament ... The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The retrospectivity argument, if accepted, would equally apply to amendments made to any part of the Constitution, though the power of the Parliament to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged,” the court said.

The Bench adverted to what socialism and secularism would mean in the Indian context and how the policy on the same is to be framed by the government.

“The ‘secular’ nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when they, in the larger public interest impede development and the right to equality. 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. Similarly, the word ‘socialism’, in the Indian context should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government & others of the people’s choice at a given time. Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, ‘socialist’ denotes the State’s commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity ... The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade,” the court stated.

The Supreme Court was hearing petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, which added the terms “socialist” and “secular” to its the preamble of the Constitution of India.

On November 22, it had indicated that it will pronounce its order in the matter on Monday. It had, at the time, reminded the petitioners that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the 42nd amendment had been examined and upheld by the Supreme Court earlier as well.

The petitions were filed by former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and one Balram Singh.

The Supreme Court had observed last month that secularism has been held to be a core feature of the Constitution and that the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution need not be looked at through the western lens.

Communist Party of India (CPI) leader and Rajya Sabha member Binoy Viswam has opposed the petitions in a plea filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat.

The Supreme Court said the prayers of the petitioners were questionable given the time since the enactment of the challenged amendments.

“The fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ became integral to the Preamble, makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by “We, the people of India” without any semblance of doubt.

The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution,” the court said. The pleas, thus, lack legitimate cause or justification, it opined.