On December 5, 2025, the Indian Parliament was once again thrust into a heated constitutional debate as Bhim Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), introduced a private member’s Bill seeking to remove the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The move, though not unprecedented in its sentiment, has reignited long-standing arguments about the nation’s ideological identity, the legacy of the Emergency, and the very spirit of the country’s founding document.
According to The Observer Post, Singh’s Bill, formally titled The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes a surgical edit: strike the two words—added in 1976 during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency—without altering any fundamental rights or other provisions. The MP’s rationale is as much about history as it is about principle. “The original Constitution adopted in 1949, which has been in force since 1950, did not have these two words. Mrs Indira Gandhi added these two words to the Constitution during the Emergency in 1976, under the 42nd Constitution amendment. At that time, no debate was held in Parliament,” Singh told PTI, as reported by The Hindu.
Singh’s argument is rooted in the context of the Emergency, a period from 1975 to 1977 when democratic processes were severely curtailed. Many prominent Opposition leaders—Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, George Fernandes, and others—were imprisoned, leaving Parliament, in Singh’s view, unable to properly debate or oppose the sweeping 42nd Amendment. “Democracy was being murdered, and in that situation, Mrs Indira Gandhi added these two words. So, this was added later... the Constitution should remain in its original form,” Singh asserted, echoing a refrain familiar to critics of the Emergency-era changes.
But why target “secular” and “socialist” specifically? Singh contends that the framers of the Constitution, led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, had already embedded the principles of secularism and social justice into the structure of the document itself. “The chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, gave an answer. He said the structure of the Constitution of India is such that it will make the country secular. He said it (inclusion of the word) is not needed…,” Singh recalled, according to The Hindu. On the word “socialist,” Singh pointed to Ambedkar’s caution that the Constitution should not bind future generations to a fixed economic or political ideology. “As far as socialism is concerned, it is related to the welfare of the people. How to ensure the welfare of the people, how to reduce poverty, how should wealth be distributed… all these have been factored in in the Constitution,” he explained.
Singh’s motivations, however, are not solely legal or philosophical. He alleges that the terms were inserted for political expediency. “The term ‘socialist’ was added to make the then USSR happy, and the term ‘secular’ was added to appease Muslims. It is unnecessary. It is not required; it only creates confusion,” Singh contended, as reported by The Hindu. This charge of “appeasement politics” is not new in Indian discourse, but Singh’s bluntness has brought it to the fore once more.
When pressed about the likelihood of his Bill becoming law, Singh was candid about its slim prospects. Private member’s Bills—those introduced by MPs who are not ministers—rarely pass in India’s Parliament. Only fourteen have ever become law, and none have cleared both Houses since 1970. “We understand that the Bill may not necessarily be passed, but the issue would come to the attention of the government and the people,” Singh said, signaling that the true aim may be to spark public and political debate rather than to effect immediate legislative change.
Singh also rejected the accusation that his Bill is an attack on the Constitution. Instead, he framed it as an effort to restore the document to its original form. “Was India secular before 1976 or not? Were Nehru ji, Lal Bahadur Shastri or Indira Gandhi running a communal government? Why were these words required then?” he asked, according to The Hindu. The Bill, he emphasized, would not alter any fundamental rights or other constitutional protections.
As News18 notes, Singh’s arguments echo a broader skepticism among some political factions toward the 42nd Amendment, often dubbed the “Mini-Constitution” for its sweeping changes. Critics have long argued that the amendment, passed during a time of curtailed freedoms and parliamentary scrutiny, lacked the democratic legitimacy required for such significant alterations. Yet, legal and constitutional experts largely agree that, whatever its origins, the 42nd Amendment is now an integral part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly affirmed this view. In landmark judgments, the Court has held that the inclusion of “secular” in the Preamble simply makes explicit what was already implicit in the Constitution’s commitment to equality and freedom of religion—principles enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 25. Removal of these words, legal scholars argue, would require not only a constitutional amendment but would also face intense judicial scrutiny under the Basic Structure doctrine established by the Kesavananda Bharati case. The doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament, no matter the majority.
Despite the Bill’s dim legislative prospects, its introduction has succeeded in reigniting a national conversation about India’s ideological identity and the enduring legacy of the Emergency. Supporters of Singh’s proposal argue that restoring the Preamble to its pre-1976 form would honor the intentions of the Constitution’s framers and reduce political confusion. They see the addition of “secular” and “socialist” as unnecessary, symbolic gestures that have muddled rather than clarified the Republic’s core values.
Opponents, however, view the move as an attempt to roll back hard-won protections for religious and social minorities, and to reopen wounds from one of the country’s most divisive periods. They argue that the explicit affirmation of secularism and socialism in the Preamble has served as a vital bulwark against majoritarianism and economic inequity, especially as India’s political landscape has shifted in recent decades.
For now, Singh’s Bill remains a long shot in legislative terms. But its significance lies in its timing and its symbolism. By challenging the words that have defined India’s constitutional self-image for nearly half a century, the Bill forces the country to grapple once more with questions as old as the Republic itself: Who are we as a nation? And how should that identity be reflected in our most foundational text?
As Parliament debates, and the courts—perhaps inevitably—are drawn into the fray, the story of “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble is far from over. Whether or not the words remain, the conversation they have sparked is certain to echo for years to come.
