2024 (11) TMI 1123 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to insertion of the words socialist and secular in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976 - retrospectivity of the insertion in 1976, resulting in falsity as the Constitution was adopted on the 26th day of November 1949 - whether word secular was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word socialist fetters and restricts the economic policy choice vesting in the elected government? HELD THAT - The fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after the words socialist and secular became integral to the Preamble, makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by We, the people of India without any semblance of doubt. The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, there are no legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. The circumstances do not warrant this Court s exercise of discretion to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic pronouncement. There are no justification or need to issue notice in the present writ petitions, and the same are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the insertion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976.

Analysis:
The writ petitions sought to challenge the insertion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976. The challenge was based on various grounds, including the retrospectivity of the insertion in 1976, the deliberate omission of the word 'secular' by the Constituent Assembly, and the argument that the word 'socialist' restricts economic policy choices of the elected government. It was also contended that the Forty-second Amendment was passed during the Emergency in 1976, without the will of the people to sanction the amendments. However, the flaws and weaknesses in these arguments were deemed obvious and manifest by the Court.

The Court emphasized that the power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, rests with the Parliament under Article 368. The Court rejected the argument of retrospectivity, stating that the power of the Parliament to make amendments under Article 368 is incontrovertible. The Court highlighted that the Constitution is a living document, subject to amendments by the Parliament in accordance with Article 368, irrespective of the date of adoption.

Regarding the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble, the Court explained that the Constitution is a dynamic document and India has developed its own interpretation of secularism over time. The Court referred to various provisions in the Constitution that uphold secular principles, ensuring equality and non-discrimination based on religion. The Court also clarified that 'socialism' in the Indian context does not restrict economic policies but reflects the State's commitment to welfare and equality of opportunity.

The Court cited previous judgments, including Kesavananda Bharati and S R Bommai, which affirmed secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court elaborated on the concept of secularism in the Indian context, emphasizing equal treatment of all faiths without discrimination. The Court also clarified that 'socialism' in the Indian framework aims at economic and social justice, without mandating a specific economic structure.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed in 2020 challenging the constitutional amendments made in 1976, stating that the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' have gained widespread acceptance over the years. The Court found no legitimate cause for challenging the amendments after 44 years, as they did not impede legislations or policies of elected governments. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions and pending applications related to the matter.