SC reviews validity of 'socialist', 'secular' in Preamble, ruling on Nov 25

The 42nd Amendment of the Indian constitution has been subjected to judicial review. The Supreme Court noted that Parliament's actions during the Emergency could not be dismissed entirely as invalid

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 22), reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, which added the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to its the preamble of the Constitution of India. 

 

The top court said that the 1976 constitutional amendment, which introduced the terms ‘socialist’, ‘secular’, and ‘integrity’ to the Preamble, had undergone extensive judicial reviews over the years.

 

The SC bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, noted that Parliament’s actions during the Emergency could not be dismissed entirely as invalid. “The 42nd Amendment has been subject to judicial review. We cannot say whatever parliament did previously was all nullity,” the CJI said.

 

The Preamble’s original phrasing, describing India as a “sovereign, democratic republic”, was altered under the Indira Gandhi government to include ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’. The Emergency rule in India spanned from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, a period marked by sweeping constitutional changes.

 

The bench reserved its decision on a group of petitions, including those filed by Subramanian Swamy and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, challenging the inclusion of these terms. Despite petitioners’ requests, the court declined to refer the matter to a larger bench.

 

What is the debate on ‘Socialism’ and ‘Secularism’? 

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Khanna explained that in India, socialism has always been interpreted as representing a “welfare state”. He elaborated that this interpretation differs significantly from its global meanings, as India’s model allows the private sector to thrive alongside state welfare policies. The bench also reaffirmed that secularism, as interpreted in the landmark 1994 S R Bommai case, remains a foundational principle of the Constitution.

 

Advocate Jain contended that earlier interpretations of ‘socialist’ by justices like V R Krishna Iyer have been questioned in recent verdicts. He argued that the amendment, passed during the Emergency without public consultation, effectively imposed ideologies on the people.

 

Subramanian Swamy proposed an alternative approach, suggesting that the added terms could appear as a separate paragraph in the Preamble, rather than being presented as part of its original 1949 adoption. He emphasised that even the subsequent Janata Party government had supported these changes.

 

The bench clarified that Article 368 grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, and dismissed arguments that only the Constituent Assembly could amend it. It also noted that the 42nd amendment did not require ratification by the states.

 

SC to give final decision on November 25 

The court announced it would deliver its verdict on November 25, while reiterating its earlier stance that secularism and socialism are integral to India’s constitutional framework. This decision comes amidst long-standing debates over the relevance and origins of the terms added to the Preamble during the Emergency.  (With PTI inputs)