The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver a landmark verdict on November 25 regarding the validity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the terms “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976.
This ruling will decide whether the amendments, which redefined India’s identity as a “sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic,” are constitutionally valid.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had earlier observed that the principle of secularism has been established as part of the “basic structure” of India’s Constitution through several Supreme Court judgments. On Friday, the court reserved its judgement after hearing arguments in a batch of petitions challenging the amendment.
The 42nd Amendment, passed during the Emergency period, not only inserted the words “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble but also changed the phrase “unity of the nation” to “unity and integrity of the nation.” This move has remained a subject of controversy, with several petitions challenging its validity.
The petitioners argue that the insertion of the terms “socialist” and “secular” contradicts the historical and cultural values of India, claiming that they go against the country's deep-rooted traditions and religious beliefs.
One petition specifically contended that the concept of “Dharma” in India is different from the Western notion of religion, and the Communist idea of state-driven socialism cannot be applied in the Indian context.
The petitioners argue that these changes are out of sync with the socio-religious fabric of India and should not be applied to citizens or political parties.
A central argument from the petitioners is that the right to religious freedom, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, makes it contradictory for India to be compelled to be secular, especially when citizens have the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion.
They claim that secularism, as defined in the Preamble, should only apply to the workings of the state and should not force citizens, political parties, or social organisations to adhere to secular principles.
The petitioners also pointed out the difference between secularism in India and secularism in countries like France, where the government remains entirely separate from religious matters.
In contrast, India’s Constitution empowers the state to engage with religious issues, including providing special rights to religious minorities under Article 30.
Moreover, the petitioners have challenged the inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” principles in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to the petitioners, the Act’s requirement for political parties to explicitly commit to upholding “secularism” and “socialism” in their constitutions is unconstitutional.
They argue that this requirement forces parties to align with values that may not resonate with their ideologies or the beliefs of their supporters.
The outcome of this case is significant because it could have a profound impact on the political and legal landscape of India.
The court’s decision will determine whether these two key principles, “socialism” and “secularism,” will continue to define India’s national identity, or if they will be modified or removed from the Preamble.
Follow us
