Supreme Court Upholds Insertion of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Preamble: Dr. Balram Singh vs. Union of India (25 November 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 893

Judges: Hon’ble Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar

Can amendments to the Preamble of the Constitution be challenged decades after their enactment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, dismissing a challenge to the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution of India. This case examines the validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The Court upheld the amendment, emphasizing that the Constitution is a living document and that the Parliament has the power to amend it, including the Preamble. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

The petitioners challenged the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution of India through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The petitioners argued that the insertion was retrospective and therefore false, as the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949. They also contended that the Constituent Assembly deliberately did not include the word ‘secular’ and that the word ‘socialist’ restricts the economic policy choices of the elected government. Additionally, they argued that the Forty-second Amendment was unconstitutional as it was passed during the Emergency after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 368 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. The Court noted that this power extends to the Preamble.
• Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds and guarantee equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment.
• Article 25 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, other fundamental rights, and the State’s power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices.
• Article 26 of the Constitution of India: This article extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law.
• Article 29 of the Constitution of India: This article safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens.
• Article 30 of the Constitution of India: This article grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
• Article 44 of the Constitution of India: This article in the Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a living document with the power given to the Parliament to amend it as per Article 368. The Court also noted that the concept of secularism is reflected in Articles 14, 15, and 16, which prohibit discrimination on religious grounds and ensure equality.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble was retrospective and therefore false, as the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949.
• The Constituent Assembly deliberately did not include the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble.
• The word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choice of the elected government.
• The Forty-second Amendment was unconstitutional as it was passed during the Emergency after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, which extends to the Preamble.
• The date of adoption of the Constitution does not restrict the power to amend it.
• The Constitution is a living document, and amendments are necessary to reflect the evolving needs and values of the nation.
• The terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ are consistent with the existing constitutional framework, particularly Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30, and they do not restrict the economic policies of the government.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following points:

• Whether the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 is valid.
• Whether the amendment is invalid due to its retrospective nature.
• Whether the amendment was unconstitutional as it was passed during the Emergency.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On Secularism:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges), Supreme Court of India: The Court noted that this case observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• S R Bommai vs Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 (9 Judges), Supreme Court of India: The Court noted that this case observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• R C Poudyal v. Union of India, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 324, Supreme Court of India: The Court elucidated that secularism represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.
• M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360, Supreme Court of India: The Court elaborated that secularism in the Indian context is a term of the widest possible scope, where the State maintains no religion of its own, and all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion.

On Socialism:

• Excel Wear v. Union of India and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 224, Supreme Court of India: The Court had held that the addition of the word socialist in the Preamble may enable the Court to lean more in favour of nationalization and State ownership of industries, yet this Court recognized private ownership of industries.
• Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2024 INSC 835, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the Constitution allows the elected government to adopt a structure for economic governance which would sub-serve the policies for which it is accountable to the electorate.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 368 of the Constitution of India: The Court reiterated that this article grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble.
• Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that these articles prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds and guarantee equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment.
• Article 25 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Article 26 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions.
• Article 29 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens.
• Article 30 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
• Article 44 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that this article guarantees the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225* and S R Bommai vs Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1* to affirm that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• The Court used R C Poudyal v. Union of India, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 324* to explain that secularism means treating all faiths equally and without discrimination.
• The Court cited M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360* to elaborate on the wide scope of secularism in the Indian context.
• The Court referred to Excel Wear v. Union of India and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 224* to acknowledge that while the term ‘socialist’ may lean towards nationalization, it does not negate private ownership.
• The Court used Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2024 INSC 835* to clarify that the Constitution allows the elected government to adopt a structure for economic governance.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, which extends to the Preamble.
• The understanding that the Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect the evolving needs and values of the nation.
• The consistent interpretation of secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution, ensuring equal treatment of all faiths.
• The understanding of socialism as a commitment to a welfare state and equality of opportunity, not a specific economic policy.
• The fact that the challenge was made 44 years after the amendment, indicating widespread acceptance.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on legal interpretations and constitutional principles, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered various arguments and precedents, ultimately concluding that the amendments were valid and consistent with the constitutional framework. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a living document and that the Parliament has the power to amend it to reflect the evolving needs and values of the nation.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. This amending power extends to the Preamble.”

“While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble of the Constitution under Article 368.
• The Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect evolving societal values.
• The terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ do not restrict the economic policies of the government but rather denote the State’s commitment to a welfare state and equality of opportunity.
• Challenges to constitutional amendments must be made in a timely manner.
• The insertion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble is consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. The writ petitions were dismissed, and pending applications were also dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble of the Constitution under Article 368, and the Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect evolving societal values. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law and does not introduce any new legal principles or doctrines. It clarifies that the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble are consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution and do not restrict the economic policies of the government.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. The Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, emphasizing the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble. The Court clarified that the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ do not restrict the economic policies of the government but rather denote the State’s commitment to a welfare state and equality of opportunity. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect the evolving needs and values of the nation.

Category

• Constitutional Law
  • Preamble of the Constitution
  • Article 368, Constitution of India
  • Secularism
  • Socialism
  • Basic Structure of the Constitution
• Constitution of India
  • Article 368, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can the Preamble of the Indian Constitution be amended?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble of the Constitution under Article 368.

Q: What does the term ‘secular’ mean in the Indian context?
A: In the Indian context, ‘secular’ means that the State does not support or penalize any religion and treats all faiths equally.

Q: Does the term ‘socialist’ in the Preamble restrict the economic policies of the government?
A: No, the term ‘socialist’ denotes the State’s commitment to be a welfare State and to ensure equality of opportunity, not a specific economic policy.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the challenge to the 42nd Amendment after 44 years?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge because the amendment had been in place for 44 years, indicating widespread acceptance, and the constitutional position remained unambiguous.

Q: What is the significance of the Constitution being a ‘living document’?
A: The Constitution being a ‘living document’ means that it can be amended to reflect the evolving needs and values of the nation.