On November 2022, the Supreme Court of India reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution, which were inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, heard arguments from the petitioners, including prominent BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, and Balram Singh, who argued that the addition of these terms was constitutionally improper.
The petitioners contended that the words “socialist” and “secular” were included during the Emergency period without adequate public consultation and that the inclusion was ideologically driven. They argued that the amendment should have been debated in a larger bench, given the significance of the terms. CJI Khanna, however, rejected the plea to refer the matter to a larger bench, affirming that the matter had already been judicially reviewed and that Parliament had the power under Article 368 of the Constitution to amend the Preamble.
CJI Khanna emphasized that “secularism” had been upheld as part of the Constitution’s basic structure in the landmark SR Bommai case, and that “socialism” in the Indian context was primarily understood as a welfare state. He clarified that the amendment’s intent was not to impose specific ideologies but to reflect the state’s commitment to the welfare of its citizens.
Dr. Swamy argued that while the terms were supported by Parliament during the Emergency, there was a need to separate them from the original Preamble adopted in 1949. CJI Khanna responded by pointing out that the legislature’s role in amending the Constitution had been affirmed, and that Parliament had rightfully included these terms.
The Court is expected to deliver its order on Monday, after considering further submissions from the petitioners and their request for hearings from the Attorney General and Solicitor General. This case will examine crucial constitutional issues surrounding the scope of amendments under Article 368 and the interpretation of the Preamble’s terms.
Case Details:
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
Lawcutor 