The Supreme Court on Friday, November 2022, reserved its order on a set of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, as introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, also rejected a plea to refer the matter to a larger bench.
The petitioners, including senior BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, and Balram Singh, contended that the words “socialist” and “secular” were unlawfully added during the Emergency period, without public consultation or proper parliamentary procedure. They argued that this amendment amounts to the imposition of specific ideologies on the people.
However, CJI Khanna countered that the term “socialism” in the Indian context refers only to a welfare state, and does not contradict the thriving private sector. “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,” said CJI Khanna, emphasizing that the concept of socialism has never hindered the private sector. He further clarified that secularism, too, is integral to the Constitution’s basic structure, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the SR Bommai case.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, invoked the recent 9-judge bench’s judgment on Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which had a majority view on the interpretation of socialism. Jain argued that the amendment was passed during a period when the Parliament’s powers were extended under Emergency provisions, and that the inclusion of these terms violated democratic principles by not being subjected to public debate.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, another petitioner, stated that his objection was not to the concepts of socialism and secularism themselves, but to the “illegal” insertion of these terms into the Preamble without due process.
In response, CJI Khanna reinforced that the Constitution’s amendment power under Article 368 also extends to the Preamble. “The preamble is part and parcel of the Constitution. It is not separate,” he affirmed. The bench also rejected arguments questioning the legitimacy of the 42nd Amendment and clarified that judicial review had already been applied to the subject, with Parliament’s intervention being valid.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, appearing as a party-in-person, added that the amendment had been supported not only during the Emergency but also by the post-Emergency Janata Party government. He suggested that the terms “socialist” and “secular” could be added as a separate paragraph in the Preamble rather than altering the 1949 text.
The Court also dismissed requests to hear views from the Attorney General and Solicitor General, as no notice had been issued to them at this stage. With ongoing interruptions from other lawyers, the CJI deferred the order until Monday.
The petitions under consideration are:
- Balram Singh v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 645/2020)
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020)
- Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India (MA 835/2024)
As the case continues, all eyes are on the Court’s decision, which could have significant implications for constitutional interpretation and the structure of Indian democracy.
