Sanatan Prabhat > Post Type > News > National News > Supreme Court rejects plea challenging inclusion of words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ in the Constitution

Supreme Court rejects plea challenging inclusion of words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ in the Constitution

  • Supreme Court dismisses petition before completing hearing

  • Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and Vishnu Shankar Jain to file review petition

New Delhi – The petition demanding removal of the words viz. ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the preamble of the Constitution has been dismissed by the Supreme Court before completing the hearing. The Court said that the issue is 50 years old. The petition was filed by former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy, and advocates Ashwini Upadhyay and Vishnu Shankar Jain. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had included these words in the preamble during emergency in 1976 under the 42nd amendment of the Constitution.

1. Chief Justice stated that there is no need to conduct in-depth hearings. The fact that the Constitution was adopted by the people of India on 26th November 1949, does not make any difference since the two words were added in 1976 under the amendment of the Constitution.

2. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, cited the recent 9-judge bench’s ruling on Article 39(b) of the Constitution, wherein a majority led by the then-CJI DY Chandrachud rejected the socialistic interpretations put forth by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy.

3. CJI Khanna noted that the way we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. In our context, socialism primarily means a welfare state. The word socialism is used in a different context, meaning that the state is a welfare state and must stand for the welfare of the people and shall provide equality of opportunities. He noted that in the 1994 SR Bommai case, ‘secularism’ was ruled to be a component of the Constitution’s fundamental framework.

4. Vishnu Shankar Jain further argued that the amendment was enacted in 1976 without consulting the public because it was drafted during the emergency. He argued that the addition of these terms would equate to forcing people to adhere to certain ideologies. How the words could be added later since the Preamble had a deadline.

5. The Bench asserted that Article 368 gives “incontrovertible” authority to the Parliament to amend the preamble.

I am not satisfied about dismissal of the petition though I do respect the Supreme Court – Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the petitioners

Adv. Ashwini Upadhyay

While talking to the newspaper ‘Sanatan Prabhat’, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay informed that he respects the Supreme Court; but he was not happy about the Court dismissing the petition on the preamble of the Constitution even before completing the hearing. He has issued a press note wherein he has stated that he would file a ‘review petition’ in the Court. He has raised 15 queries related to the law in this press note, some of them are given below.

1. Does the Government have a right to amend the Constitution when its duration is over ?

2. Can the Government amend the Constitution as per its whims and fancies ?

3. During an emergency, the Government has power to take decisions only on matters related to emergency, then can it make changes in the preamble of the Constitution ?

4. Can an amendment be carried out in the Constitution even when the Parliament didn’t exist in 1976 ?

5. Similarly, can the words communism or colonialism be added to the preamble ?

Advocate Upadhyay added that an amendment carried out during the period of emergency and after the Parliament was dissolved, creates a constitutional, legal and moral concern. It is challenging the principles of democracy, raises doubts about the legality and the procedure of Constitutional amendment; besides, it underlines the need for preserving integrity and sacredness of the Constitution. The preamble is a reflection of the foundation of the Constitution and should be protected from unrestrained amendments. Any amendment should be examined to decide its properness related to the fundamental principles and ideals of democracy on which our democratic republic has been founded.

Editorial Perspective

These words were included by the then Congress Government while amending the Constitution; therefore, they should be removed by the present Union Government through another amendment.

Latest Articles