Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed, without issuing notice, writ petitions challenging the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' into the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It held that Parliament's power under Article 368 extends to the Preamble and is not limited by the 1949 date of adoption. Both words have a settled meaning in the Indian context, and a challenge brought about 44 years later did not warrant detailed examination.
Issues
- Whether Parliament could insert 'socialist' and 'secular' into the Preamble in 1976 given that the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949, and whether that insertion is impermissibly retrospective.
- Whether the insertion is invalid because the Constituent Assembly had deliberately left these words out.
- Whether 'socialist' restricts the economic policy choices of elected governments.
- Whether the Forty-second Amendment is vitiated because it was passed during the Emergency by a Lok Sabha sitting beyond its normal term, and whether a challenge filed in 2020 called for detailed adjudication.
Provisions considered
- Article 368, Constitution of IndiaHeld to vest the amending power in Parliament, extending to the Preamble. Amendments remain open to challenge, including on the basic structure ground, but the 1949 date of adoption does not curtail the power. The retrospectivity argument, if accepted, would apply equally to amendments of any part of the Constitution. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Preamble (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976), Constitution of IndiaThe insertion of 'socialist', 'secular' and 'integrity' was upheld. The Court explained that the Preamble's original tenets already reflected a secular ethos, and that 'socialist' denotes a welfare State committed to equality of opportunity rather than any particular economic model. (¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 7)
- Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 44, Constitution of IndiaRelied on as the provisions embodying the Indian understanding of secularism, under which the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith, while still being able to strive for a uniform civil code. (¶ 3)
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of IndiaRelied on to show that 'socialism' in the Preamble does not restrict private enterprise or the fundamental right to carry on trade and business. (¶ 5)
Held
- Article 368 vests the amending power in Parliament, and that power extends to the Preamble. The fact that the people adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949 does not restrict the power, and the retrospectivity objection fails because it would equally defeat amendments to any part of the Constitution. (¶ 2)
- That the Constituent Assembly did not include 'socialist' and 'secular' does not invalidate their later insertion, because the Constitution is a living document that Parliament may amend under Article 368. (¶ 3)
- Indian secularism means that the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. It is reflected in Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 and in the Preamble's original tenets. Earlier decisions treat it as a basic feature and a facet of the right to equality, and it does not prevent the removal of religion-linked practices that, in the larger public interest, impede development and equality. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- 'Socialist' in the Indian context does not prescribe any economic policy, left or right, or restrict the policies of an elected government. It denotes the State's commitment to welfare, equality of opportunity and economic and social justice, and is consistent with a mixed economy, private enterprise and the right under Article 19(1)(g). (¶¶ 5, 6)
- The objection based on the Emergency and the extended Lok Sabha term had been debated in Parliament during the passage of the Forty-fourth Amendment. Given that the petitions were filed about 44 years after the insertion, that the terms are widely accepted and understood, and that they have not impeded legislation or policy consistent with fundamental rights and the basic structure, there was no justification for detailed examination or for issuing notice. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Writ petitions dismissed without issuing notice; pending and intervention applications dismissed. The miscellaneous application was allowed, the Registry was directed to register the further writ petition, and that petition was treated as dismissed.