‘If huge document could not convince them…’: Former SC Judge Chelameshwar on inserting ‘socialist, secular’ in Constitution

Anything added by amendment can also be deleted, but the inherent nature of the Constitution would remain unchanged, he said

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameshwar cautioned that elected representatives must not presume their actions are automatically justified merely because they hold a popular mandate, LiveLaw reported.

Speaking at the Government Law College, Ernakulam, on the topic “Clamour for Removal of Secularism & Socialism: Whether Justified”, he said, “What is happening in this country is that elected representatives believe that we have got the mandate from the people so whatever we do is right. That is exactly the constitutional issue… That is what is not approved by the Constitution.”

He underlined that so long as the current legal system stands, its authority must be respected.

“You don't want this Constitution, throw it out… so long as this is the system that we have chosen, the legal system is the umpire between the legislative bodies and the constitutional correctness. You have to accept it,” he said according to LiveLaw.

He pointed out that “secular” and “socialist” were absent from the Constitution’s Preamble for the first 25–26 years, though related principles existed within it.

Anything added by amendment can also be deleted, but the inherent nature of the Constitution would remain unchanged. Referring to the 42nd Amendment, which inserted these words, he said, “If that huge document could not convince them of the socialist and secular structure, adding those two words… I don’t know what wisdom was that.”

On socialism, he noted that the 1991 liberalisation policy effectively abandoned socialist economic practice without formally removing the word. On secularism, he stressed that India’s diversity necessitates constitutional safeguards for peaceful coexistence, adding, “Even if we drop it today the other parts remain, the fundamental rights.”

He urged lawyers to engage society: “Would we like to live in a country where you have freedom of conscience or no freedom of liberty?… It is for us collectively to determine whether we should live in a secular society in the true sense of it.”

Justice Chelameshwar said one can oppose and seek amendments to the Constitution, citing how the 1967 Golaknath verdict was overturned in 1973 by Kesavananda Bharati, which limited Parliament’s power to alter the Constitution’s basic structure.

On whether a perfect political system exists, he remarked, “Nothing can be perfect… You want a better system, what you believe would be a better system, you fight for it.”

Recalling the unprecedented 2018 press conference by four senior judges highlighting concerns over allocation of sensitive cases, he said, “I thought things are not right and I owed a duty to my fellow citizens… so long as I don't resort to violence I can advocate my views and you can also do it.”