SC rejects pleas challenging ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in Indian Constitution’s Preamble

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 24) rejected pleas which challenged the inclusion of words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution under the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency.

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, while reading out the order, said that Article 368 of the Constitution grants amending power to the Parliament which also extends to the Preamble.

The bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar reaffirmed the “incontrovertible” power of the Parliament to carry out amendments in the Constitution under Article 368 if the amendments do not violate its basic structure.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

The bench added that the addition of terms cannot be invalidated on the grounds that the original adoption date of November 26, 1949, has been retained by the Preamble.

“The fact that the Constitution was adopted and actively given to themselves by the people of India on 26th of November 1949, does not make any difference. The date of the adoption would not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution,” said the CJI, while reading out the judgement.

Also Read:Indian PM Modi joins world leaders to congratulate Trump on his win in US election

On November 22, while reserving its order, the bench said that there has been a judicial review of the 42nd Amendment and the decisions taken by the Parliament during that time cannot be nullified.

“The way we understand socialism in India is very different from the way other academics may understand. In our context, socialism primarily means welfare state. That’s all. It has never prevented the government. There’s this private sector which is thriving, doing well… The word socialism used over here is in a different context that the State must ensure it’s a welfare state and that there should be equality of opportunity. That’s done through so many Articles. Then why worry about that score? Why go into all that?” said the bench.

Here's what the petitioners said

It was argued by the petitioners that the matter needed consideration by a large bench, however, the judges disagreed.

The petitioners said that “when this amendment was brought in, we were never heard. It was the Emergency (period)”.

Watch:India-China: Beijing And New Delhi Signal Need For Normalised Ties

The petitions were filed by social worker Balram Singh, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and former BJP parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, who claimed that the original vision of the framers of the Constitution was distorted by the 42nd Amendment.

It was argued that the terms “socialist” and “secular” were deliberately excluded by the framers during Constituent Assembly debates.

The legitimacy of the 1976 Parliament, which was operating in the Emergency and had an extended tenure, was also questioned by the petitioners.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who was representing Singh, said, “The tenure of the Lok Sabha was extended to address emergency requirements, not to amend the Constitution. Adding these words without public consultation distorted the original intent of the framers.”

India's former prime minister Indira Gandhi had declared an Emergency from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, during which the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by the Parliament.

(With inputs from agencies)