Supreme Court to rule on removal of `Secular` and `Socialist` from Constitution

The Supreme Court of India has announced that it will deliver its verdict on Monday regarding petitions seeking the removal of the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. These petitions challenge their inclusion, which was introduced during the Emergency in 1976 through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act.

Key Developments:

1. Petitions and Petitioners:
   • The petitions were filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and lawyers Balram Singh, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, and Ashwini Upadhyay.
   • The petitioners argue that:
     • The inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” was inconsistent with the basic structure doctrine, laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), which prohibits Parliament from amending the Constitution’s basic features.
     • These terms impose specific political ideologies on citizens and infringe upon their right to choose.
     • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar deliberately excluded these terms from the original Preamble in 1949.
2. Court’s Observations:
   • The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, remarked that:
     • The concept of socialism in India primarily refers to a welfare state, not necessarily the same as Western socialism.
     • Secularism is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring freedom of religion and the state’s neutrality in religious matters.
   • The court reiterated that these terms should not be interpreted solely through a Western lens and that they can carry diverse meanings tailored to Indian contexts.
3. Historical Context:
   • The 42nd Amendment, enacted during the Emergency period (1975-77), added “secular” and “socialist” to the Preamble.
   • Critics, including the petitioners, contend that this amendment altered the Constitution’s original intent without due consideration of its long-term implications.
4. Legal Arguments:
   • The petitioners claim the inclusion violates the basic structure doctrine, which prevents Parliament from altering the fundamental features of the Constitution under Article 368.
   • They argue that the addition was made under contentious circumstances during the Emergency and does not reflect the framers’ original intent.

Significance of the Verdict:

The verdict will address:

• Whether the inclusion of these terms violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Whether Parliament exceeded its authority by inserting ideological terms into the Preamble.
• The broader implications for interpreting secularism and socialism in the Indian context.

This case has reignited debates about the balance between constitutional interpretation, historical legacy, and modern governance ideals in India. The outcome could have far-reaching political and constitutional implications.