In a significant legal proceeding, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its decision on a series of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution’s Preamble. These terms were added during the 42nd Amendment in 1976, under controversial circumstances. The petitions, raised by Balram Singh, senior BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, request the removal of these words, arguing that their insertion during the Emergency period was unconstitutional.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, heard the arguments on Friday and decided against referring the case to a larger bench. Despite interruptions from some lawyers, which delayed the proceedings, Chief Justice Khanna announced that the final order would be pronounced on the following Monday.
During the hearing, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, cited a recent judgment by a nine-judge bench concerning Article 39(b) of the Constitution. He argued against the interpretations by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy, suggesting that the socialistic stance should be reconsidered. In response, Chief Justice Khanna emphasized that socialism, in the Indian context, implies a welfare state and does not inhibit the thriving private sector, thus supporting the status quo.
Additionally, Jain argued that the 42nd amendment lacked public consultation and represented an ideological imposition. Chief Justice Khanna, however, maintained that the amendment’s validity had been thoroughly reviewed judicially and that it fell within Parliament’s powers under Article 368, which includes the authority to amend the Preamble.
Advocate Upadhyay and Dr. Swamy, while not opposing the concepts of socialism and secularism per se, disputed the procedural aspects of their incorporation into the Preamble. Dr. Swamy further suggested that these terms should be added as a separate paragraph rather than altering the original 1949 Preamble.
The bench did not issue notices on the petitions, indicating a reserved approach to the proceedings. As interruptions continued, the Chief Justice opted to defer the pronouncement of the order to Monday, signaling a careful consideration of the contentious historical amendments.
The final hearing underlined the court’s view that secularism is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure, a point previously established in the landmark SR Bommai case. The upcoming decision will likely address not only the legality of the amendment process but also the broader implications for India’s constitutional identity.
