The Supreme Court of India has recently upheld the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble of the Constitution, which was modified during the Emergency period under the 42nd Amendment. This ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, asserts the Parliament's authority to amend the Preamble as granted under Article 368 of the Constitution.
On November 22, the Supreme Court had previously reserved its judgment on this matter. When addressing the court, Chief Justice Khanna clarified the nature of the amending power, stating, "The Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 extends to the Preamble as well." This decisively rejects the notion presented by challengers of the amendment who argued it should not be interpreted retrospectively due to the adoption of the Constitution being recorded as 1949.
The bench, which also included Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, emphasized the need to understand the terms "socialism" and "secularism" within the Indian framework, which aligns with the nation’s governance and ethos. The Chief Justice pointed out, "Socialism does not negate private sector initiatives and emphasizes on welfare state principles, aiming for equality of opportunity for all citizens." This perspective frames the socialist agenda not merely as state control over resources but rather as ensuring social justice within the democratic structure.
Some petitioners contended the legitimacy of the 1976 amendment was compromised by being enacted during the Emergency—a contentious period marked by political strife and suppression of dissent. They claimed the amendment had not undergone sufficient public scrutiny at the time it was established. Former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy and others involved argued emphatically about the Parliament's capacity to make such alterations without public consent and suggested these terms should be regarded as additional to the Preamble rather than intrinsic to its original text.
Countering these claims, the Supreme Court upheld the view previously established by judicial reviews, reaffirming the legitimacy of the 42nd Amendment. The bench conveyed, "The 42nd Amendment has been subject to scrutiny and review, making any claims about it being invalid unfounded." With its ruling, the Court also emphasized the foundational role of justice and equality as enshrined within the broader constitutional principles.
The bench's ruling also dispelled concerns over the potential for retrospective application of amendments across all legislative changes, confirming once again the active and enduring power of Parliament to reshape constitutional provisions as societal values evolve. "If we accept the argument about retrospectivity, then it would apply universally to all amendments made over time, leading to constitutional instability," noted Chief Justice Khanna.
This ruling guides future legislative actions and societal expectations around the foundational principles of India’s democracy, implying the Constitution remains alive and adaptable to contemporary societal needs. The Supreme Court maintains, "These terms signify the State's obligation to uphold the welfare of all citizens, promoting equitable distribution and opportunities within the framework of economic growth and progress."
Looking beyond this decision, what stands out is the Court's commitment to embedding core values within the Constitution itself. The emphasis on welfare and equality dovetails with India’s aspiration to be not merely democratic but also just and inclusive. Given the historical backdrop against which these amendments were made, the ruling presents both assurance and clarity on how India wishes to define its socio-political identity moving forward.
Despite opposition from certain quarters, the Supreme Court stands firm, propelling forward the message of integrity and cohesion within constitutional law. By articulately defining socialism and secularism within the Indian cultural narrative, it reinforces the idea of promoting collective welfare alongside individual freedoms, ensuring both shared responsibility and personal liberty are upheld.
