Petition in Supreme Court challenges the inclusion of "secular" and "socialist" in India's Preamble, arguing it violates political freedom and was excluded by the Constitution's framers. The case raises significant questions about ideology, constitutional amendments, and India's democratic principles.
New Delhi, September 25, 2024 – Recently, a petition has been lodged in the Supreme Court of India has sparked a legal controversy concerning the inclusion of two words, secular and socialist, in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The petition contests the 42nd amendment enacted in 1976 during an emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Her government added the term “Socialist and Secular” to the Preamble. This case revolves around whether or not these words must be retained within the Constitution, a determining factor that can alter the country’s political and legal landscape.
The Petitioners’ Argument
The petition was filed by advocates Balram Singh, Karunesh Kumar Shukla and a social worker Pravesh Kumar,. Their most prominent demand is with regard to the deletion of “secularism” and “socialism” from the Preamble of the Constitution. They argue that the original framers of the Constitution intentionally left out these terms, and their inclusion through the 42nd Amendment goes against the core philosophy of the constitution.
Petitioners who are in the process of starting a political party pointed out that one of the conditions of registration of a political party with the Election Commission of India (ECI) is acceptance of the principles of secularism and socialism. They assert that this condition violates their right to political freedom and right to express divergent ideologies.
The petitioners maintain that the terms added in Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by the amendment made in 1989, impose certain ideologies on political parties and individuals which, in their view, violates their constitutional rights.
Legal Justifications
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioners, strongly argued, in a democratic system, there should not be any imposition on any citizen to adhere to any particular political ideology. He pointed out that both secularism and socialism are political creations, which ought to be decided by the will of the people through free and fair elections instead of by legal enforcements. The petitioners argue that such impositions violate fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of religion (Article 25) and the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
The petition proceeds to highlight that the framers of the Constitution had enough opportunities to incorporate these terms during the drafting process but still opted not to. It talks about key instances during Constituent Assembly debates in which similar requests to add ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ words were rejected. For instance, on November 15, 1948, Professor KT Shah suggested the addition of the ‘Secular, Federal and Socialist Nation’ in the Preamble of the Constitution, but the Assembly after detailed debates dismissed the proposal. Additional efforts in late November and December 1948 were also met with rejection.
Citing these examples, petitioners question the Parliament’s ability, through the 42nd Amendment, to include the words “socialist” and “secular” into the Constitution when it was already resolved by the Constitution makers not to have them in the Constitution.
Philosophical and Historical Roots
The petition deals with the roots of secularism and the nature of socialism where it is claimed that these concepts were forced on India from the West and the Marxist ideology and hence do not fit with the Indian society and culture. The statutes affirm that the foundation of Indian state is based on ‘Dharma’ which is a distinct concept from the western definitions of religion or state. It claims that the western conception of a secular state, which perceives a complete disengagement of state from the religion, is not suited to India where the state often interacts with the religious entities.
Moreover, the petitioners maintain that the adoption of socialism as a political phenomenon is not a natural fit for India’s social-economic structure. They argue that imposing ideals of socialism on people narrows down political freedom, hindering their ability to embrace different economic and political ideas. This, they argue, is a severe blow to the rationality of democracy where people should be free to accept any type of ideology they wish to without any coercion.
Supreme Court’s Initial Reaction
During the first hearing, the Supreme Court raised significant questions regarding the amendment of the preamble while retaining the date of original adoption, which is November 26, 1949. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the legitimacy of amending the preamble without changing its historical date.
Justice Datta said, “This is perhaps the only Preamble I have come across which comes with a date. Originally these two words [secular and socialist] were not there.” The court added that the analysis of the situation will require much more time and, therefore, the next court sitting will be held on April 29, 2024, in order to address constitutional issues.
At the hearing, Subramanian Swamy, a former Rajya Sabha MP who had filed a similar petition, said that the insertion of such words in the Preamble was inconsistent with the ‘basic structure doctrine’, a legal principle which was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. He claimed that the preamble is an integral part of the constitution and cannot be tampered with particularly during times of national emergency when the 42nd amendment was passed.
Opposition to the Petition
Not everyone supports the Petition. One such voice has been raised by Binoy Viswam, a leader of Communist Party of India and Rajya Sabha MP who has submitted a counter-petition defending the inclusion of the words “secular” and “socialist”. Viswam says that these principles are important in keeping the Indian state united and inclusive, especially for the minorities and also ensuring India remains a welfare state where capitalists do not reign supreme.
Viswam further argued that the 42nd Amendment was not made in a fit of anger without understanding but it was a long overdue step to reinforce the promises of the country to its people in regard to equality and justice. He dismissed the reasonings of the petitioners as nothing else than a scheme to weaken the Indian democracy by legitimizing the mixing of religion and politics and use it for sectarian ends.
Political Controversy: Missing Words in New Constitution Copies
At the same time, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, a member of Congress, as reported recently made new statements that new copies of the Constitution which had been distributed to Members of Parliament in the new Parliament building do not contain the words “secular” and “socialist”.
Chowdhury’s assertion has stirred political controversy, with opposition leaders expressing concerns that this omission could signal an attempt by the government to undermine the historical importance of these terms, which protect minority rights and ensure economic equity.
These allegations have led to a broader political debate, with opposition figures questioning the government’s intentions regarding these foundational aspects of the Constitution.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court prepares to engage in detailed discussions on this matter, the debate over the inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble continues to resonate across political and legal arenas. The case has raised fundamental questions about the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, the role of ideology in democratic governance, and the extent to which the original intent of the Constitution’s framers should be respected. The final outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for India’s constitutional framework and its socio-political fabric.
