Supreme Court Upholds Emergency-Era Inclusion of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Preamble

Ending a longstanding debate spanning five decades, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the 42nd constitutional amendment of 1976 that inserted the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The amendment, enacted during the Emergency by the Indira Gandhi government, had also added the word ‘integrity’ to the Preamble. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected a challenge to the amendment, affirming that these additions neither obstruct private entrepreneurship nor constrain the government from abolishing detrimental religious practices.

Addressing the significance of secularism, the bench clarified that it requires the government to remain neutral towards all religions while also allowing it to eradicate discriminatory religious practices. The court observed, “Secularism mandates the government not to favour any religion, but it does not prevent the elimination of religious attitudes and practices impeding development and the right to equality.”

The court also emphasized that despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and non-discrimination based on faith, the Directive Principles of State Policy empower the government to work towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). This issue has been a contentious topic in Indian politics, particularly since the Shah Bano case judgment of 1985.

On the issue of socialism, the bench clarified that in the Indian context, it does not dictate a rigid economic framework. It asserted, “Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, ‘socialist’ denotes the State’s commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity.” The court highlighted that socialism in India seeks to achieve economic and social upliftment without impeding private entrepreneurship or the fundamental right to conduct business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).

CJI Khanna, speaking for the bench, elaborated on India’s unique approach to socialism, which accommodates both public welfare and private enterprise. He noted, “India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways. In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances.”

The challenge to the amendment was brought in 2020 through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), nearly 44 years after the insertion of these terms into the Preamble. The petitioner argued that the framers of the Constitution had deliberately excluded these words from the Preamble after extensive deliberations. Additionally, it was contended that the term ‘socialist’ limited the government’s economic policy choices and that the amendment was passed on November 2, 1976, despite the Lok Sabha’s term having ended on March 18, 1976.

The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, stating, “We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging the constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years.” The court further emphasized that the power to amend the Constitution, including its Preamble, resides solely with Parliament.

On the inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble, the bench highlighted India’s distinctive interpretation of secularism, where the State neither endorses nor penalizes any religion. It remarked, “Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith.”

The court referenced several constitutional provisions that prohibit the government from discriminating against citizens based on their religion. These provisions also guarantee individuals the freedom to practice and propagate a religion of their choice while enabling minority communities to establish and manage their educational institutions. Despite these protections, the bench reiterated that Article 44 of the Directive Principles permits the State to pursue a UCC for all citizens.

By upholding the 42nd amendment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the constitutional validity of these terms in the Preamble. The judgment underscores the flexibility of India’s constitutional framework, allowing it to adapt to evolving societal needs while preserving fundamental rights and principles.