Supreme Court Upholds Inclusion Of 'Socialist', 'Secular' In Preamble, Junks Plea Challenging 42nd Amendment

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a series of petitions on Monday that challenged the addition of the words "socialist" and "secular" to the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar upheld Parliament's unequivocal power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, provided such amendments do not violate its basic structure.

Photo Credit: PTI

The bench ruled that the inclusion of these terms could not be invalidated on the basis that the Preamble retained its original adoption date of 26 November 1949.

"The fact that the Constitution was adopted and actively given to themselves by the people of India on 26th day 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," stated the CJI while delivering the operative part of the judgment. The full judgment is yet to be published.

The petitions, filed by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, social worker Balram Singh, and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, argued that the 42nd Amendment distorted the original vision of the Constitution's framers.

They asserted that the framers had deliberately omitted the terms "socialist" and "secular" during the Constituent Assembly debates.

The petitioners also questioned the legitimacy of the 1976 Parliament, which functioned during the Emergency and under an extended tenure. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Singh, argued: "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."

Swamy further contended that the inclusion of the terms made the Preamble inconsistent with its original adoption date and suggested that these words be acknowledged as later additions rather than implying they were part of the original text.

Upadhyay clarified that his objection was not to the concepts of socialism or secularism but to the process of their inclusion during the Emergency, which he described as "illegal".

The court rejected these arguments, emphasising that Parliament's authority under Article 368 extends to amending the Preamble. The bench noted that the amendment has undergone extensive judicial scrutiny and legislative endorsement in the decades since its enactment.

In earlier hearings, the court addressed concerns about the term "socialism," affirming that its Indian interpretation denotes a welfare state and does not conflict with private sector growth. "Socialism in India is about equitable distribution of resources and equality of opportunity. It does not hinder private enterprise, which thrives in our country," the court observed.

Regarding secularism, the bench highlighted its uniquely Indian interpretation, where the state is obligated to respect all religions equally. The court referenced the SR Bommai case (1994), which upheld secularism as an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure.

The bench also dismissed the contention that the Emergency-era Parliament lacked legitimacy to amend the Constitution.

"The subject amendment (42nd Amendment) has been subjected to judicial review and upheld. Legislative actions taken during the Emergency cannot be annulled solely because they were enacted under an extended Lok Sabha," the court remarked.

Judgment in the case had been reserved on November 22.