In November 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
Commenting on the idea of secularism and socialism, the apex court cited various judgments like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, S R Bommai vs Union of India and R C Poudyal v. Union, where secularism was held as a basic feature of the Constitution. “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 judgment observed.
'Socialist' doesn’t indicate an economic plan
On the idea of socialism, the bench observed that in the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
It was assumed that the apex court’s rejection of the petition would give a silent burial to this issue but it was raked up last month when the RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale while speaking at an event commemorating 50 years of the imposition of the Emergency said a discussion is required whether the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution should continue to stay.
Following Hosabale’s comments, BJP leaders Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and then Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar also waded into the debate.
Constituent Assembly debated this issue
The words “socialist” and “secular,” added to the Preamble in 1976, have not become controversial only recently; they were debated even in the Constituent Assembly. Prof. K.T. Shah repeatedly proposed describing India as a “Secular, Federal, Socialist” republic, but his suggestions found little support and were ultimately rejected.
KT Shah moved an amendment on 15 November 1948 that sought to include “Secular, Federal Socialist’ in Article 1.
BR Ambedkar, however, outrightly rejected the proposed amendment.
Ambedkar’s reasons to reject the inclusion of ‘socialist’
According to Ambedkar, the Constitution was merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. He said: “What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.”
The apex court, in various judgments, has dealt with this issue in the same light. In R C Poudyal v. Union of India, the Court elucidated that although the term 'secular' was not present in the Constitution before its insertion in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism essentially represents the nation's commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.
In M Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, this Court elaborated that the expression secularism in the Indian context is a term of the widest possible scope.
In Dr Balram Singh and others v. Union of India, the apex court opined that the word 'socialism', in the Indian context, should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government of the people's choice at a given time.
The court opined that neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity.
Judiciary’s loath to get into the question of Preamble
While the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case laid down the Basic Structure doctrine, defining principles that form the spirit of the Constitution and cannot be amended away — including ideas like secularism — it appears that the Court has generally preferred to leave specific questions about the wording or inclusion of terms like “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the domain of the legislature and the executive.
In other words, while affirming the core values these words represent, the apex court seems to be treading cautiously, signalling that the question of whether the Preamble should be amended to omit these terms is ultimately a matter for the Parliament to decide, and not one that calls for judicial intervention.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
