New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on the eve of the 75th Constitution Day, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas challenging the inclusion of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.
A bench led by the new Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna rejected the petitions that sought removal of word ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ in the Constitution’s Preamble, saying “It has been there for so many years. Why rake it up now? The 42nd Amendment has already passed judicial scrutiny”.
The CJI emphasised that the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 extends to the Preamble, and after decades of implementation, these amendments cannot now be undone.
Addressing arguments on whether the date of the Preamble’s adoption precludes subsequent changes, the CJI clarified, “The date of adoption does not curtail Parliament’s power under Article 368, which is not under challenge.”
The petitions challenging the amendment were filed by senior BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, and Balram Singh.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the amendments—introduced during the Emergency in 1976—were made without public consultation and imposed specific ideologies on the nation.
Jain further questioned, “When the Preamble comes with a cut-off date, how can words be subsequently added?” He requested the court to refer the matter to a larger bench.
Responding to the arguments, the CJI distinguished the Indian interpretation of socialism from other nations, stating, “In India, socialism primarily signifies a welfare state. It has never hindered the growth of the private sector. We have all benefitted from this approach.”
On secularism, the CJI reiterated its position as a fundamental principle of the Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai case. He affirmed that “Secularism is intrinsic to the basic structure of the Constitution.”
Swamy suggested that the words could have been added as a separate paragraph in the Preamble, reflecting their inclusion, rather than appearing as if they were part of the original 1949 adoption.
However, the CJI dismissed the argument, noting that the Preamble forms an integral part of the Constitution and is amendable under Article 368.
Advocate Ashwani Upadhyay clarified that his opposition was not to the concepts of socialism and secularism but to the manner of their insertion.
The CJI rejected this argument, emphasising, “Amending the Preamble is within Parliament’s constituent power.”
The CJI commended the petitioners for their efforts, but simultaneously dismissed the pleas, asserting, “You all tried very well.” UNI
