New Delhi:In a major ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment to the Indian Constitution that added the terms "socialist," "secular," and "integrity" to the Preamble. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, introduced by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency period from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, aimed to redefine India's foundational principles amidst widespread political turmoil.
On November 22, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar reserved its verdict on the petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Upadhayay. These pleas contested the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble, challenging the legitimacy of the amendments made during the Emergency. The first petition was initiated by Balram Singh through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain in 2020.
While pronouncing the verdict, Chief Justice Khanna stated, "The writ petitions do not need further deliberation and adjudication. The amending power of Parliament over the Constitution extends to the Preamble.” He emphasised that the passage of time prevents the nullification of the amendment, asserting that the government's authority under Article 368 remains intact regardless of the Constitution's adoption date.
The bench remarked, "It has almost been so many years, why rake up the issue now?" highlighting the impracticality of revisiting the amendment after several decades. Justice Khanna further explained that the amendment had undergone judicial reviews, and the actions of Parliament during the Emergency cannot be entirely dismissed as nullity. The amendment transformed India's description in the Preamble from a "sovereign, democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic."
Rejecting the petitioners' request to refer the matter to a larger bench, the bench clarified, "Being socialist in the Indian sense is understood to be a welfare state." Justice Khanna added, "The way we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. In our context, socialism primarily means a welfare state. That is all. It has never prevented the private sector, which is thriving well. We have all benefited from it."
The bench also referenced the 1994 S.R. Bommai case, stating that "secularism" is part of the Constitution's basic structure, reinforcing its foundational importance.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhayay, one of the petitioners, clarified that he does not oppose the concepts of "socialism" and "secularism" but contests their insertion into the Preamble. In a separate plea, Swamy argued, "Not only did the Emergency Parliament adopt this, but it was also subsequently supported by the Janata Party government's Parliament with a two-thirds majority, in which this particular aspect of socialism and secularism was retained." He questioned whether these terms should have been added as a separate paragraph to the Preamble instead of being integrated in 1949.
"The issue here is only this much — whether we would make out that this should come as a separate paragraph because we cannot say that in 1949 these words were adopted. Therefore, the only issue that remains is, having accepted this, we can have a separate paragraph below the original paragraph," Swamy concluded.
