The Supreme Court, on Monday, November 25, dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The court emphasized that these concepts have been firmly integrated into the constitutional framework over time and questioned the justification for challenging the amendment after nearly 44 years.
“We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,” the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna said, adding, “It has almost been so many years, why rake up the issue now?”
The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, elaborated that secularism is a fundamental aspect of equality embedded in the Constitution’s framework. “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,” observed the court.
Addressing concerns over socialism, the bench clarified that its Indian context ensures economic and social justice without restricting private enterprise or the elected government’s policy choices. “The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g),” the court stated. Justice Khanna added, “Socialism in India primarily signifies a welfare state. It has never hindered the private sector, which continues to thrive. The State’s focus is on public welfare and equality of opportunity.”
The court reiterated that Parliament possesses the authority to amend the Constitution, including its Preamble, under Article 368. It noted that the additions have not hindered legislation or government policies, provided these respect constitutional rights and the Constitution’s basic structure.
The petitions, which sought to challenge the 42nd Amendment, argued that the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” was inconsistent with India’s historical and cultural ethos. One plea claimed that the amendment contradicted the concept of “Dharma,” which it argued is distinct from religion and incompatible with Communist theories of governance. Another contended that citizens cannot be compelled to be secular when the Constitution guarantees the right to freely practice and propagate religion under Article 25.
The pleas also challenged provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring political parties to pledge allegiance to the principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy as a condition for registration with the Election Commission. The petitioners argued that secularism in other countries, such as France, involves strict separation of government and religion, whereas the Indian Constitution allows state intervention in religious matters and provides special rights to religious minorities under Article 30.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, stating that secularism and socialism, as interpreted in India, are intrinsic to its democratic fabric and ensure the welfare and equality of all citizens. The bench concluded that the principles enshrined in the Preamble reflect the aspirational values of the Indian Constitution and continue to guide the nation toward inclusive governance.
(With IANS inputs)