SC Dismisses Plea For Removing ‘Secular’ And ‘Socialist’ In The Preamble Of The Constitution

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed plea claiming that ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution as “unnecessary”.

The plea was to challenge the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, that  held the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble.

Debate Over ‘Socialist’ And ‘Secular’ Additions To The Indian Constitution

The inclusion of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency period (1975–1977) remains a contentious topic of legal and political discourse. These amendments, made under the Indira Gandhi-led government, expanded the original description of India as a “sovereign, democratic republic” to reflect its commitment to socialism and secularism.

The Supreme Court recently reserved its verdict on petitions challenging these additions. Prominent petitioners, including politician Subramanian Swamy and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that the amendments altered the fundamental character of the Constitution. Despite their appeals, the court declined to refer the case to a larger constitutional bench.

Clarifications on Socialism and Secularism

During the November 22 hearing, Chief Justice Khanna offered important clarifications on the concepts of socialism and secularism in the Indian context. He emphasized that socialism in India is not synonymous with its global interpretations, such as state-controlled economies. Instead, it signifies a welfare state model that allows the coexistence of a thriving private sector alongside government-driven social welfare initiatives.

The bench further reaffirmed the definition of secularism established in the landmark 1994 S.R. Bommai case. This ruling had solidified secularism as a core constitutional principle, emphasizing the state’s equal treatment of all religions without favor or bias.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which introduced these terms to the Preamble, was enacted during the Emergency—a period marked by sweeping changes to constitutional and political structures. Critics argue that the amendments reflected the political climate of the time rather than a broad consensus. Supporters, however, contend that they were necessary to underline India’s commitment to inclusive governance and social justice.

The Current Debate

The petitions challenging the amendments have reignited discussions about the balance between preserving constitutional ideals and respecting historical contexts. While the court’s decision is awaited, the debate underscores the ongoing evolution of India’s constitutional interpretation and its relevance in contemporary governance.

This case serves as a reminder of the enduring impact of constitutional amendments and their implications for India’s identity as a sovereign, democratic republic committed to both social welfare and secular principles.

Also Read: Sambhal Violence: FIR Filed After Jama Masjid Violence, Samajwadi Party MP Named