On October 21, the Supreme Court underscored the intrinsic role of secularism within the Indian Constitution, cautioning against a Western-centric interpretation of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ embedded in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, representing the bench, emphasized that these terms should resonate with the Indian ethos.
During the proceedings, the Court was presented with petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment, specifically targeting the addition of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to the Preamble. These terms were introduced during a period of significant political upheaval in India, sparking extensive debate about their relevance and interpretation in the Indian context.
Justice Khanna articulated, “The concept of socialism in India may encompass broader notions such as equal opportunities for all, aligning closely with the principles of equality. Similarly, secularism in India should be viewed through a distinctly Indian lens, rather than the narrow confines of Western interpretations.”
The bench agreed to entertain arguments from the petitioner, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who asserted that these terms, added retroactively in 1976, should not be linked with the original Preamble crafted in 1949. The Court, however, stopped short of issuing a formal notice to the Central government, setting further hearings for November.
The 42nd Amendment, passed during India’s Emergency period, has been a focal point of constitutional discourse, particularly in relation to the basic structure doctrine established by the Supreme Court. This doctrine, pivotal in the landmark 1980 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case, safeguards the core principles of the Constitution from amendments that could alter its fundamental essence.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing another petitioner, questioned the amendment’s alignment with India’s foundational values, prompting Justice Khanna to inquire about the petitioner’s stance on India’s secular identity. Jain clarified, “We are not disputing India’s secular nature; our challenge is directed at the manner in which the amendment was enacted.”
Amidst these legal deliberations, the bench referenced historical interpretations and past judgments to reinforce the view that secularism forms a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, deeply embedded in its constitutional rights and values.
