SC dismisses plea to remove 'socialist' & 'secular' terms from Constitution

A Supreme Court bench was hearing of a Public Interest Litigation that calls for the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' to be removed from the Constitution's Preamble

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the concepts of 'socialist' and 'secular' are integral to the Constitution's basic framework, a point the courts have consistently said in various rulings. This statement was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for these terms to be removed from the Constitution's Preamble. One of the petitioners is BJP leader and former MP Subramanian Swamy.
 

During the proceedings, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioners, argued before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar that the 42nd Amendment of 1976, which introduced these terms, was never subjected to parliamentary debate.
 

According to Bar and Bench, replying to this, Justice Khanna said, "Please see Jain, the words have varied interpretations. Both words have different interpretations today. Even our courts have declared them, time and again, as part of the basic structure (of the Constitution)."
 

He further said, "Socialism can also mean there has to be fair opportunity for all, the concept of equality. Let's not take it in the Western concept. It can have some different meaning as well. Same with the word secularism."
 

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, referred to the Emergency period under Indira Gandhi's government, during which the amendment was made. He was referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in 1976, which determined that an individual's right to be free from unlawful detention could be suspended for state interests. Justice HR Khanna stood out as the sole dissenting judge in the 4-1 decision by the Constitution bench. Notably, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is his nephew.
 

In response to the lawyers’ statements, Justice Khanna inquired, "You don't want India to be secular?"
 

In response, advocate Jain said, "We are not saying India is not secular. We are challenging this amendment."
 

Justice Khanna further said that if one examines the right to equality and the term "fraternity" in the Constitution alongside the rights outlined in Part III, it's evident that secularism is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
 

"I can cite cases for you. When secularism was debated, there was only the French model. The Supreme Court has struck down statutes that go against secularism. You may look at Article 25. For socialism, we have not followed the Western concept and we are happy about it," Justice Khanna further said, as mentioned by the report.
 

Jain pointed out that BR Ambedkar believed that including the term "socialism" could limit liberty, to which Justice Khanna responded, "Has liberty been curtailed? Tell me?"
 

Advocate Upadhyay argued that adding these two terms to the Preamble has opened up a "Pandora's box".
 

We have always identified as secular, and with this addition, we risk the removal of terms like "democracy" in the future, he said.

"By this insertion, a box has been opened, tomorrow the word democracy can be removed or anything. There was no will of the people during the insertion of these words. No will of "we the people"," he said.
 

"There would have been numerous legislations which may have been passed then," Justice Khanna replied.
 

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy pointed out that the Preamble mentions the date November 26, 1949. He proposed that the Preamble could be divided into two sections. "We can have a Preamble in two parts. It is wrong to say that we the people of India have consented towards the enactment of the words "secularism" and "socialist". There could be two parts of the Preamble, one with the date and one without," he said.
 

Justice Khanna instructed the petitioners to submit pertinent documents for review. The bench declined to issue notices, indicating that the matter would be heard again on November 18.