Secularism and Socialism: The Constitutional Debate on the Forty-Second Amendment.


25 November 2024 Constitutional & Government >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

The insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution of India, through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, has been the subject of legal scrutiny and public discourse for several years. A series of writ petitions challenged this amendment, raising concerns about its retrospective nature, the absence of these terms in the original version of the Constitution, and the impact these words had on the economic policy framework of the nation. Additionally, questions were raised about the legitimacy of the amendment process itself, given it occurred during the period of the Emergency. However, the Supreme Court of India dismissed these petitions, affirming the constitutional validity of the amendment.

The challenge in the writ petitions was multi-faceted. The petitioners contended that the retrospective insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in 1976, despite the Constitution’s adoption on November 26, 1949, led to the falsification of its original spirit. They argued that these terms had been deliberately excluded by the Constituent Assembly and that the amendment restricted the economic choices of elected governments. Furthermore, they raised the issue of the legitimacy of the Forty-second Amendment, arguing that it had been passed during the Emergency without the consent of a duly elected Lok Sabha.

 
 

The Supreme Court’s response to these arguments was decisive. The Court noted that the power to amend the Constitution, as enshrined in Article 368, was unquestionable and extends to the Preamble itself. The fact that the Constitution was adopted in 1949 did not restrict Parliament’s ability to amend its provisions. The retrospective nature of the amendment, if accepted, would pose a challenge to any constitutional amendment, which, the Court emphasized, would not undermine the power granted to Parliament under Article 368.

In addressing the concern regarding the absence of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the original Constitution, the Court reaffirmed that the Constitution is a living document, capable of evolving over time through amendments that reflect the changing needs and aspirations of the nation. In 1949, the term ‘secular’ had not been included because its meaning was not fully clear and its interpretation could be seen as conflicting with religious practices. However, as India’s democracy matured, the notion of secularism was better understood: the state would neither favor nor discriminate against any religion. The principles of equality, liberty, and fraternity already enshrined in the Constitution aligned with this secular ethos, and the inclusion of the term ‘secular’ in the Preamble was seen as a natural evolution.

Similarly, the Court discussed the term ‘socialism’, clarifying that its inclusion did not prescribe any specific economic policy. The word ‘socialist’ signified the state’s commitment to social and economic justice, rather than dictating a particular economic structure. The Indian Constitution does not mandate a specific economic ideology but instead emphasizes welfare, equality, and the upliftment of marginalized groups. The Court observed that India’s economic model was a mixed one, where both the public and private sectors coexisted and contributed to the country’s development. The inclusion of the word ‘socialist’ did not impede the government’s ability to pursue diverse economic policies.

One of the critical aspects of the petitioners’ argument was the contention that the Forty-second Amendment had been enacted during the Emergency, a period when democratic processes were undermined. However, the Court pointed out that the legitimacy of constitutional amendments had been previously deliberated and upheld in Parliament. The addition of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ was explained and discussed during the consideration of the Forty-Fifth Amendment Bill in 1978, and the Court had previously acknowledged that these terms represented India’s commitment to secularism and the eradication of exploitation.

In dismissing the petitions, the Court also highlighted the fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, nearly four decades after the amendments had been made. The words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ had been widely accepted and had become an integral part of India’s constitutional identity. The Court found no valid reason to challenge the amendment after such a prolonged period, especially when the terms had been accepted by the people and had not obstructed the actions of elected governments, provided they did not infringe upon fundamental rights or the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Court's ruling underscores the principle that the Constitution, as a living document, is capable of adaptation and evolution to meet the changing needs of society. The inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble reflects the nation’s commitment to equality, justice, and a welfare-oriented approach, while also allowing room for diverse economic and political policies. This judgment reaffirms the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and clarifies the evolving interpretation of fundamental principles such as secularism and socialism in the Indian context.