SC dismisses pleas challenging inclusion of ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ in Preamble

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a series of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, introduced through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar ruled that the Parliament's amendment powers under Article 368 extend to the Preamble, rejecting arguments that the amendment was retrospective and invalid.

Parliament’s power to amend Preamble
The bench clarified that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and subject to amendment under Article 368. "The date of adoption of the Preamble does not restrict Parliament’s power to amend it," observed CJI Khanna, dismissing claims that such amendments required Constituent Assembly approval.

The judgment emphasised that terms like "socialism" and "secularism" in the Indian context are rooted in creating a welfare state and ensuring equality. "How we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. It refers to a welfare state. It has never prevented the thriving of the private sector," remarked CJI Khanna.

The petitions, filed by senior BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, and Balram Singh, argued that the amendment was introduced during the Emergency without public consultation and could force ideological conformity.

The bench, however, observed that the amendment had stood judicial scrutiny for decades. "After so many years, why rake up the issue now?" CJI Khanna questioned.

The petitioners had earlier sought a referral to a larger bench, which the Supreme Court declined. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, cited recent judgments questioning earlier interpretations of socialism. However, the Court maintained that "secularism," a term deemed part of the Constitution’s basic structure in the SR Bommai case, and "socialism" in India are consistent with constitutional values.

Arguments of petitioners
Advocate Upadhyay argued that his opposition was not against socialism or secularism but against their "illegal" inclusion during the Emergency. Jain claimed that the amendment bypassed states' ratification and public consent.

Dr Subramanian Swamy noted that subsequent Parliaments, including those led by the Janata Party, supported the amendment, suggesting that the words could have been added in a separate paragraph rather than altering the 1949-adopted Preamble.

Court’s ruling
Rejecting these arguments, the bench held that the 42nd Amendment had undergone significant judicial and legislative scrutiny, rendering it valid. "We cannot say that whatever Parliament did at that time is nullified," CJI Khanna asserted.

The detailed judgment, expected to outline the constitutional basis for its decision, will provide further clarity on the Court’s stance.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)