SC Reserves Judgment on Petition Against 'Socialist' and 'Secular' in Preamble

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its orders on petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, following the 42nd Amendment of 1976. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the case, rejecting a plea from the petitioners to refer the matter to a larger bench.

The petitions were filed by BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, and Balram Singh. During the proceedings, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, cited the recent judgment by a 9-judge bench on Article 39(b) of the Constitution, where the majority rejected the socialistic interpretations by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy. Jain argued that the inclusion of the words in the Preamble, made during the Emergency without public consultation, was an imposition of ideology on the people, and insisted that a larger bench hear the matter.

In response, CJI Khanna clarified that the understanding of "socialism" in India is distinct, primarily referring to a "welfare state," rather than the global interpretation. "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," he stated. He further emphasized that this understanding has never hindered the thriving private sector in India. On "secularism," CJI Khanna pointed out that the Supreme Court had already established it as part of the Constitution’s basic structure in the SR Bommai case.

Jain, however, argued that the amendment was passed during the Emergency and questioned whether such an addition could be made to the Preamble. CJI Khanna rejected this plea, reiterating that the amendment power under Article 368 of the Constitution extends to the Preamble, which is integral to the Constitution.

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, another petitioner, clarified that he did not oppose the concepts of socialism or secularism but objected to the "illegal" insertion of these terms into the Preamble. CJI Khanna responded that the amendment had undergone significant judicial review and that the Parliament’s actions during the Emergency could not be nullified.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, appearing as a party-in-person, noted that even after the Emergency, the Janata Party-led Parliament had supported the inclusion of these words, adding that the debate was whether these terms should be presented as a separate paragraph in the Preamble.

As the court proceedings were nearing conclusion, the Chief Justice, frustrated by repeated interruptions from intervenors, deferred the order to Monday. "List on Monday for orders," CJI Khanna said. Jain requested the court not to dismiss the case, to which CJI Khanna responded, "Yes yes, we heard you. Monday we will pass the order."