Supreme Court Upholds 'Secular' and 'Socialist' in Preamble, Dismisses Removal Pleas
Category: Constitutional law - Administrative affairs policy making
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
The Supreme Court of India had dismissed the petitions challenging the deletion of the word "socialist" and "secular" from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution carried out by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976. Two petitions were filed by Subramanian Swamy, leader of BJP, Ashwini Upadhyay Advocate, and Balram Singh as they complained that these words were against the original design of the Constitution. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar upheld the authority of Parliament under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, as well as the Preamble, and, while doing so, stressed the importance of these words in the socio-political fabric of India.
BACKGROUND
The words "socialist" and "secular" were added to the Preamble and "integrity" brought through the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during the Emergency. They prayed that it worked retrospectively and transformed the very intent of the Constitution in a fundamental way. The Bench went on record to declare even the amending power under Article 368 included amending the Preamble, provided nothing affected the basic structure of the Constitution.
In this regard, secularism and socialism acquire meanings unique to the character of the nation as pluralistic and welfare-oriented in a way that their Western counterparts simply do not.
KEY ASPECTS
1. Amending Power of Parliament The Court reiterated that Article 368 gives amending power to the Parliament to alter any part of the Constitution, including the Preamble, provided this is not inconsistent with the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Indian Perception of Secularism and Socialism Indian perception of secularism was defined as the element of equality wherein religious neutrality in governance would be ensured by the elimination of whatever denounced public interest. Socialism was referred to as the commitment of a state to welfare, advocating for social and economic betterment sans restriction of private enterprise or market-driven policies.
3. Time-Lapse and Acceptance
The Bench has further taken pains to point out that the 44 years spent by the petitioners to challenge the amendment vitiated their case since these terms have now so interpenetrated India's constitutional ethos that they cannot be struck down.
4. Doctrine of Basic Structure
The Court reminded the petitioners that Secularism is the very core of the Constitution as upheld in earlier judgments and this challenge to its inclusion becomes redundant.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court rejected the petitions and sealed the fact that incorporation of words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble has neither restricted policy-making nor conflicted with fundamental rights or basic structure of the Constitution. It underlines the democratic and welfare-oriented nature of the Indian Constitution, laying emphasis on how provisions of the constitution can adapt themselves to the changing needs of the society. It could not find any merit in reviving settled principles thus protecting the integrity of India's constitutional architecture.
