The Supreme Court on Monday said that the insertion of the words – ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ – in the preamble of the constitution 48 years ago in 1976 have achieved a widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by “We, the people of India” without any semblance of doubt and their addition in preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by the elected governments since.
Refusing to undertake an “exhaustive examination” of the prayers challenging the insertion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the preamble of the constitution by the forty-second amendment to the constitution in 1976, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar ,in an order pronounced today, said, “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.”
Similarly, the Court said, “…, 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” and “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.”
Stating that while it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble, the apex court,noting the evolving of the concert of secularism, said, “In 1949, the term ‘secular’ was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith.”
This principle – the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith – is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment, said the order reading the roots of secularism in the fundamental tights.
Stating 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 order said, “India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways.”
The Indian economy has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to the co-existence of public and private investment, says the court in an obvious reference to the post nineties economic reform era.
Stating that the petitions challenging the insertion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist; on the preamble do not require detailed adjudication as the “flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest”, the apex court in its order said that under Article 368 the power to amend constitution rests with the Parliament and this includes power to amend the Preamble as well.
“The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. This amending power extends to the Preamble. Amendments to the Constitution can be challenged on various grounds, including violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given to themselves by the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not make any difference. The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution” the top court said rejecting the argument of the retrospectivity of the amendment.
The Supreme Court order came on petitions by Balram Singh, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Upadhya and others who had challenged the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976 on the grounds that the insertion of words ‘secularism’ in 1976 was a falsity as the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949. The petitioners had further contended that the word ‘secular’ was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choices vested in the elected government.
The petitions were filed in the year 2020.