SC junks pleas challenging inclusion of ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ in Preamble

The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution in 1976.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar on Monday (November 25), held that the process cannot be nullified after so many years, and also explained the meanings of the words “socialism” and “secularism” in this context, LiveLaw reported.

The words were added in the Preamble by means of the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976, which was challenged by the petitioners. The Bench observed that the Parliament’s amendment power extends to the Preamble as well.

“It has almost been so many years; why rake up the issue now?” CJI Khanna said after pronouncing the judgment. The Bench had on November 22 reserved orders in a batch of petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment.

Also read: What Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia said about CJI's remarks on Justice Krishna Iyer

Meanings of “socialist”, “secular”

CJI Khanna also explained what “being socialist” in the Indian context means. “The way we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. In our context, socialism primarily means a welfare state. That is all. It has never prevented the private sector, which is thriving well. We have all benefited from it,” CJI Khanna said.

“The word ‘socialism’ is used in a different context, meaning that the State is a welfare state and must stand for the welfare of the people and shall provide equality of opportunities,” he further explained.

In a previous hearing, the court observed that “Secularism” has always been held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The petitions were filed by Balram Singh, senior BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy, and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Earlier, the Bench had dismissed the petitioners’ plea to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

Also read: Rahul mocks Modi over Constitution; says PM ‘has never read it’

“Preamble is part of Constitution”

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, arguing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the amendment, made during the Emergency, was passed without hearing the people, and the inclusion of these words would amount to forcing the people to follow certain ideologies.

Advocate Upadhyay clarified that he was not against the concepts of socialism and secularism per se but was opposing the “illegal” insertion of these words in the Preamble. CJI Khanna replied that the amendment power under Article 368 of the Constitution extended to the Preamble as well.

“The Preamble is part and parcel of the Constitution. It is not separate,” he said. “The subject amendment (42nd amendment) has been subjected to a lot of judicial review by this court. The legislature has intervened. The Parliament has intervened. We cannot say that whatever Parliament did at that time (Emergency) is nullified,” CJI said.