SC upholds inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in Preamble, junks challenges

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and justice PV Sanjay Kumar reaffirmed Parliament’s “incontrovertible” power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, provided such amendments do not violate its basic structure.
The bench held that the addition of these terms could not be invalidated merely on the ground that the Preamble retained its original adoption date of November 26, 1949.
“The fact that the Constitution was adopted and actively given to themselves by the people of India on 26th day of November 1949, does not make any difference. The date of the adoption would not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution,” stated the CJI, while reading out the operative part of the judgment. The full judgment is yet to be released.
The petitions were filed by former BJP parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, social worker Balram Singh and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who contended that the 42nd Amendment distorted the original vision of the Constitution’s framers. They argued that the framers had deliberately excluded the terms “socialist” and “secular” during Constituent Assembly debates.
The petitioners also questioned the legitimacy of the 1976 Parliament, which operated during the Emergency and under an extended tenure. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Singh, argued: “The tenure of the Lok Sabha was extended to address emergency requirements, not to amend the Constitution. Adding these words without public consultation distorted the original intent of the framers.”
Also Read: Can’t annul Parl’s legislative actions during Emergency: SC
Swamy further contended that the inclusion of the terms rendered the Preamble inconsistent with its original adoption date. He suggested that the words be acknowledged as later additions rather than implying they were part of the original text.
Advocate Upadhyay clarified that his objection was not to the concepts of socialism or secularism but to the process of their inclusion during the Emergency, which he termed “illegal”.
Rejecting the arguments, the bench emphasised that Parliament’s authority under Article 368 to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble. The court reiterated that the amendment has undergone extensive judicial scrutiny and legislative endorsement in the decades since its enactment.
During the previous hearings, the court had addressed concerns over the meaning of “socialism,” affirming that the term in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not conflict with the growth of the private sector. “Socialism in India is about equitable distribution of resources and equality of opportunity. It does not hinder private enterprise, which thrives in our country,” it remarked.
On secularism, the bench underscored its unique Indian interpretation, rooted in the state’s obligation to respect all religions equally. The court had cited the SR Bommai case (1994), which upheld secularism as a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Reserving the judgment in the matter on November 22, the bench had also dismissed the contention that the Emergency Parliament lacked legitimacy to amend the Constitution.
“The subject amendment (42nd Amendment) has been subjected to judicial review and upheld. Legislative actions taken during the Emergency cannot be annulled solely because they were enacted under an extended Lok Sabha,” the court remarked.