Supreme Court ruling on socialism, secularism
Supreme Court upholds ‘secular, socialist’ in Preamble of the Constitution
The order was based on a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words ‘socialist, secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 with retrospective application
The court dismissed the pleas and held that 'socialism' and 'secularism' are integral to the basic structure of the Constitution.
What was the original Preamble and how has it evolved? What has been the court’s stand earlier and how has it changed? What was the current case about? What bearing will it have on the society?
Updated - November 27, 2024 12:00 pm IST
Timely reiteration: On the Preamble and the Supreme Court’s order
Verdict on amendments to Preamble is a reminder of the importance of secular values
Updated - November 27, 2024 12:10 pm IST
The Supreme Court of India has done well to rebuff an attempt to question the characterisation of the country as ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the amended Preamble to the Constitution. Sections of the right wing have been uneasy for long about the identification of secularism as one of the attributes of India. This opposition has acquired traction among those who see the combination of the state not favouring or opposing any religion and the constitutional protection for minorities as something that renders the polity “pseudo-secular”. The original assumption of the makers of the Constitution was that the Constitution — with its emphasis on equality before law and equal treatment of all sections, besides the incorporation of the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion and freedom of belief and conscience in the fundamental rights chapter — is inherently secular. In terms of economic policy, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed amendments to include the word ‘socialist’ by arguing that the Constituent Assembly should not tie down future generations to any particular form of economy. Therefore, the words did not form part of the Preamble adopted along with the Constitution in 1949, but were controversially added through the 42nd Amendment enacted during the Emergency. However, that may not be reason enough for the courts to strike down their inclusion based on writ petitions filed in 2020, about 44 years after the amendment.
The Court, in S.R. Bommai (1994), ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In another case, it said: “Secularism essentially represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.” Regarding the term ‘socialist’, it is clear that its presence in the Preamble has not been an impediment to adoption of laws or policies and practices that open up sectors of the economy to open market competition. As the Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has pointed out, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, “wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith”. Similarly, the term ‘socialism’ embodies “the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances”. The Court has not countenanced the argument that the inclusion of these words came during the Emergency, when Parliament’s term was extended, noting that this aspect was debated in Parliament in 1978 when the 44th Amendment Act was considered. As the Constitution completes 75 years of existence, the verdict upholding the inclusion of the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ amounts to a timely reiteration of these fundamental attributes.
How ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were inserted in the Preamble, why SC ruled they will stay
How did the Preamble as we know it today come into existence? And why did the court refuse to consider the challenges to how it is phrased?
Written by Ajoy Sinha Karpuram
New Delhi | Updated: November 29, 2024 06:41 IST
Newsguard
clock_logo6 min read
PreambleThe preamble of the Constitution serves as a statement clarifying the guiding principles and purpose behind the Constitution of India. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Almost exactly 75 years since the Constitution of India was adopted, the Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) upheld the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the founding document.
Through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (42nd Amendment), Parliament during the Emergency enacted a sweeping series of amendments to the Constitution, one of which was labelling India a “SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”.
SC junks pleas seeking removal of words ‘secular’, ‘socialist’ from Constitution’s PreambleThese words were inserted into the Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976 through a Constitutional amendment.The Week News Desk By The Week News Desk Updated: November 25, 2024 19:37 IST
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking the removal of words "secular”, “socialist” and “integrity” from the Preamble of the Constitution.
These words were inserted into the Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976 through a Constitutional amendment.
"We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this Constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,” said a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The petition was filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and lawyers Ashwini Updhayay, Balram Singh and Karunesh Kumar Shukla who challenged the amendment.
"The writ petitions do not need further deliberation and adjudication. The amending power of Parliament over the Constitution extends to Preamble,” the CJI said.
Also read
Ambedkar Jayanti 2024: 10 powerful Babasaheb quotes to remember on April 14
Our constitution is our biggest strength, says PM Modi
VP Jagdeep Dhankhar will be a textbook Rajya Sabha chairman
Historic City Chowk in Jammu renamed as 'Bharat Mata Chowk'
Noting that the first petition in this case was filed in 2020, forty-four years after the Constitutional amendment, the court said the delay rendered the petitions 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 bench said.
The top court clarified that parliament has the power to amend the Constitution and this power is not curtailed by the date of its adoption.
“The date of the adoption of the Constitution would not curtail the government's power under Article 368 and moreover this is not under challenge,” it said.
Swamy in his petition argued that the insertion of the words “secular” and “socialist” conflicted with the original Preamble adopted in 1949. He further claimed that the Constitutional amendment brought in by the Indira Gandhi government violated the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which prohibits Parliament from altering the Constitution's essential features.
'Challenge after 44 years' Supreme Court junks pleas against 'socialist' 'secular' in PreamblePTI Updated: November 25, 2024 19:28 IST
pti-preview-theweek
New Delhi, Nov 25 (PTI) In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the pleas challenging the 1976 amendment to the Constitution adding terms "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" to the preamble, observing Parliament’s amending power extended to Preamble too.
Rejecting the pleas on grounds, including the delay of over 44 years, the top court said terms like "socialist" and "secular" were "integral to the Preamble” making the "prayers particularly questionable".
Authoring the verdict, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, "We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. The circumstances do not warrant this court’s exercise of discretion to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic pronouncement."
The bench also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar wrote in its seven-page order, "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 words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" were inserted into the Preamble to the Constitution under the 42nd constitutional amendment moved by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976.
The order observed Article 368 of the Constitution permitted its amendment.
"The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. This amending power extends to the Preamble," it underlined.
The top court said the amendments to the Constitution could be challenged on various grounds, including violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
“The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given to themselves by the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not make any difference. 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 Parliament to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged,” highlighted the verdict.
The petitions do not require a detailed adjudication as the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest, it added.
"While it is true that the constituent assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368,” it said.
India for a period of time has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the state neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith, it said.
The order referred to several decisions, underscoring the term secularism was held to be a basic feature of the Constitution.
"The state maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights. However, 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,” it said.
Commenting on the term "socialism", the order said in the Indian context, it should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government 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,” it noted.
India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalised and underprivileged sections in different ways, the verdict outlined.
The bench also did not agree with the argument that the constitutional amendment be struck down as it was enacted during the emergency where the term of Lok Sabha was extended.
In the apex court's view, the additions to the Preamble did not restrict or impede legislation 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 bench on November 22 reserved its verdict on the pleas filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Updhayay challenging the inclusion of these words in the Preamble to the Constitution.
One of the first petitions was filed by one Balram Singh through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain in 2020. The amendment changed the description of India in the Preamble from a "sovereign, democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic".
Emergency in India was declared by the late PM Indira Gandhi from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)
