Supreme Court Upholds Inclusion of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the Preamble. Date of Judgement : 25-11-2024
Justices:
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Legal Question:
Is the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution during the Emergency period by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, constitutionally valid?
Factual Background:
Several writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble by the Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976. The petitioners contended that:
👉 The Constituent Assembly deliberately omitted the term ‘secular’ from the Preamble.
👉 The term ‘socialist’ restricts the economic policy choices of elected governments.
👉 The amendment was passed during the Emergency, when the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended (March 18, 1976), and therefore lacked the people’s democratic sanction.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, dismissed the petitions. The Court held that the constitutional position regarding the secular and socialist nature of the Indian Constitution remains clear due to previous judicial interpretations of these terms.
Key Reasons for the Decision:
1. Lack of Justification for the Challenge:
- The Court noted that the challenge was raised 44 years after the enactment of the amendment.
- Over the years, the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ have been widely accepted and understood by Indian society.
- These additions have not restricted legislative or policy decisions made by successive governments.
- Given these reasons, the Court refused to conduct a detailed examination of the challenge.
2. Secularism: A Broad Constitutional Concept:
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble.
- The retrospective nature of an amendment does not limit this power.
- The Court acknowledged that while the Constituent Assembly did not explicitly include ‘secular’ in the Preamble, multiple constitutional provisions reflect a secular ethos:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality)
- Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
- Article 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment)
- Article 25 (Freedom of Religion)
- Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs)
- Article 29 & 30 (Rights of Minorities)
- The Court referred to R C Poudyal v. Union of India (1993 INSC 51), which held that secularism ensures equal treatment of all faiths without discrimination.
- The Court reiterated the established doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 INSC 91) and S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994 INSC 111), affirming that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
3. Interpretation of ‘Socialism’
- The Court clarified that ‘socialism’ does not impose a rigid economic framework.
- Instead, it reflects the State’s commitment to social and economic justice, ensuring that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances.
- The term does not exclude a mixed economy or private enterprise.
- The Court ruled that ‘socialism’ is an aspirational goal for economic upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship or the right to business and trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Precedent on Economic Governance
- The Court cited the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 835).
- The ruling clarified that the Constitution allows elected governments to adopt economic policies that align with their mandates and commitments to the electorate.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment, upholding the inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble. The judgment reaffirms that these terms align with the broader constitutional principles and have been consistently upheld as integral to India’s governance.
This ruling affirms that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution extends to ensuring its adaptability to evolving socio-political realities while maintaining its core values.
See Judgement >>> BALRAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 645/2020 (PDF)