GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed multiple petitions challenging the inclusion of the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976. The petitioners had also questioned the legitimacy of the Parliament that passed the amendment during the Emergency.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, reaffirmed Parliament’s authority under Article 368 of the Constitution to amend its provisions, including the Preamble, provided such changes do not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
The bench clarified that retaining the Preamble’s original adoption date—November 26, 1949—did not invalidate the inclusion of the terms “socialist” and “secular.” CJI Khanna noted, “The adoption date does not limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.” The full judgment is awaited.
The petitions, filed by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, social worker Balram Singh, and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, contended that the amendment distorted the original vision of the Constitution’s framers. They argued that the framers deliberately excluded these terms during Constituent Assembly debates.
The petitioners also questioned the legitimacy of the Parliament of 1976, which functioned under an extended tenure during the Emergency. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Singh, argued that the Emergency Parliament’s extended term was meant for emergency management, not for amending the Constitution. Upadhyay clarified that his objection was not to the concepts of socialism or secularism but to the “illegal” process of their inclusion without public consultation.
Swamy argued that the terms should be acknowledged as later additions rather than implied as part of the original text, maintaining that the amendment rendered the Preamble inconsistent with its original adoption.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench reiterated that the 42nd Amendment had undergone judicial scrutiny and legislative approval over the years. The court addressed concerns about the legitimacy of the Emergency-era Parliament, stating, “Legislative actions taken during the Emergency cannot be invalidated solely because they were enacted under an extended Lok Sabha.”
The bench also provided clarity on the meaning of socialism and secularism in the Indian context. It stated that socialism signifies a welfare-oriented state aiming for equitable resource distribution and equal opportunities, while also allowing private enterprise to thrive. Regarding secularism, the court underscored its Indian interpretation, emphasising the state’s obligation to respect and treat all religions equally.
Citing the landmark SR Bommai case (1994), the court reaffirmed that secularism is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
This ruling reinforces the enduring authority of the 42nd Amendment and Parliament’s constitutional powers, putting to rest decades-old debates about the inclusion of these principles in the Preamble.
