Shivanand Pandit
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on November 25, 2024, dismissed the pleas challenging the 1976 amendment to the Constitution adding the terms ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘integrity’ to the preamble, observing Parliament’s amending power extended to the Preamble too. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India dismissed pleas challenging the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to our Constitution. Rejecting the pleas on grounds, including the delay of over 44 years, the top court said terms like ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were “integral to the Preamble, making the ‘prayers particularly questionable’.
Authoring the verdict, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, “We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. The circumstances do not warrant this court’s exercise of discretion to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic pronouncement.” The bench also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar wrote in its seven-page order, “In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme’s pattern.”
The current case was filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, and others, who challenged the inclusion of the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble. Mr. Upadhyay and his co-petitioners argued that these words were added during the Emergency period and imposed specific ideologies on the people. They contended that since the Preamble mentions the date of adoption by the Constituent Assembly, no additional terms could be inserted by Parliament later. While Mr. Swamy acknowledged that subsequent amendments, including the 44th Amendment in 1978 under the Janata Party government post-Emergency, had upheld these terms, he argued that they should appear in a separate paragraph below the original Preamble.
The Supreme Court dismissed the pleas, affirming that ‘socialism’ and ‘secularism’ are integral to the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Constitution is a ‘living document,’ subject to Parliament’s amending power, which extends to the Preamble as well. It emphasized that the date of adoption in the Preamble does not limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court also clarified that ‘socialism’ in the Indian context primarily refers to a welfare state that ensures equality of opportunity while allowing the private sector to thrive. Similarly, the Court recognized that India’s interpretation of ‘secularism’ has evolved, with the state neither supporting nor penalizing any religion and protecting the freedom to practice and profess any faith. Ultimately, the Court stated that secularism, in essence, is a fundamental aspect of the right to equality.
The History of the Preamble
The original Preamble, adopted on November 26, 1949, declared India as a sovereign, democratic republic. The Constituent Assembly deliberately chose not to include the word ‘socialist,’ believing that it was inappropriate to define the country’s economic ideals in the Preamble. They felt that economic policies should evolve with time and circumstances, determined by the people themselves.
Similarly, the concept of Indian secularism differs from the Western model. In Western secularism, there is a strict separation between the state and religion, with the government refraining from interfering in religious matters. In contrast, Indian secularism allows the state to regulate the economic, financial, political, and even social aspects of religious practices. The state can also intervene in social welfare and reform of religious practices. Several provisions in the Constitution, such as the right to freely practice any religion and the prohibition of religious discrimination in state affairs, embody the secular values of India’s Constitution. As a result, when the idea of inserting the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble was discussed in the Constituent Assembly, it was initially rejected.
In the Berubari case (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and, therefore, did not confer any substantive powers. However, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court reversed its earlier stance, affirming that the Preamble is indeed part of the Constitution and should be interpreted in line with the vision it embodies. The Court also held that, like any other part of the Constitution, the Preamble is subject to amendments by Parliament. In 1976, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, enacted during Indira Gandhi’s government, introduced the words ‘socialist, ‘secular,’ and ‘integrity’ into the Preamble. These additions were meant to reflect the changing social and political landscape of India and to underscore the values of socialism, secularism, and national integrity.
An exemplary verdict
The Supreme Court of India has rightly dismissed attempts to challenge the characterisation of India as a ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ state in the amended Preamble of the Constitution. For some time, elements of the right-wing have expressed discomfort with India’s identification as secular, viewing the constitutional commitment to religious neutrality and minority protection as a form of ‘pseudo-secularism.’ These critics argue that the state’s role in neither favouring nor opposing any religion, combined with protections for minority rights, undermines the nation’s cultural identity.
However, the framers of the Constitution had a clear vision: they believed that the Constitution, with its focus on equality before the law, non-discrimination, and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate any religion, was inherently secular. On the economic front, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key architect of the Constitution, opposed the inclusion of the term ‘socialist’ in the Preamble, arguing that it would unnecessarily constrain future generations to a specific economic model. As a result, the words ‘socialist’ and secular’ were not part of the original Preamble adopted in 1949, but were controversially added by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency in 1976.
While the inclusion of these terms during the Emergency remains a point of contention for some, it does not justify striking them down, especially 44 years after the amendment was enacted. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. In the S.R. Bommai (1994) case, the Court reaffirmed that secularism is integral to India’s constitutional structure, emphasizing that it reflects the nation’s commitment to treating people of all faiths equally and without discrimination. Similarly, the term ‘socialism’ has not impeded the adoption of market-oriented economic policies; rather, it embodies a commitment to economic and social justice, ensuring that no citizen is disadvantaged by economic or social circumstances.
As Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar pointed out, India’s understanding of secularism has evolved. It is based on the principle that the state neither supports nor penalizes any religion while safeguarding the freedom to practice and propagate all faiths. In the same vein, the term ‘socialism’ reflects the state’s commitment to social and economic justice. The Court also noted that the inclusion of these words was debated in Parliament, particularly during the consideration of the 44th Amendment in 1978, well after the Emergency had ended. As the Constitution marks 75 years of existence, the Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ serves as a timely reaffirmation of these foundational values. It reinforces the principles of equality, justice, and religious freedom that continue to define the Indian state.
In the early years following Independence, India embraced a model of ‘democratic socialism,’ which was marked by centralized planning and extensive state control over industries. During the 1960s and 1970s, this approach was further reinforced with the nationalization of banks and insurance companies, high tax rates, and stringent regulations. Although the economy was officially characterized as a mixed economy—allowing for the coexistence of both public and private enterprises—it largely resembled classical socialism, with its emphasis on license controls and heavy regulation. However, since 1991, India’s economy has undergone a significant transformation, shifting from this socialistic framework to a more market-oriented model. This transition has spurred impressive growth, lifting millions of people out of poverty over the past three decades. Yet, alongside this growth, rising inequality remains a pressing concern that must be addressed.
As the Supreme Court observed, India’s form of socialism continues to serve the needs of the underprivileged through various welfare schemes such as MGNREGA, subsidised food grains, direct benefit transfers for women and farmers, and others. This version of socialism must persist to guide the state’s efforts in ensuring the welfare of the disadvantaged while also fostering a thriving private sector that contributes to job creation and robust economic growth. At the same time, the core principle of ‘unity in diversity’ must be preserved, with secularism playing a vital role in maintaining the inclusive and pluralistic values of the nation. By upholding secularism, the state ensures that all citizens, irrespective of their faith or background, are treated equally and with dignity.
The writer is a tax specialist, financial adviser, author, guest faculty and public speaker based in Goa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 9822983420
