Supreme Court Rejects Pleas on ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ Terms in Constitution

skannegari

1 year ago

Supreme Court Rejects Pleas on ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ Terms in Constitution The Supreme Court of India has recently dismissed three petitions challenging the inclusion of the terms "Secular" and "Socialist" in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. These petitions, filed decades after the terms were introduced, have reignited discussions about their relevance and legality. Let’s explore the court's stance, the historical context, and the broader implications of this verdict. Historical Background of the Preamble's Amendment When the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950, the Preamble did not include the words "Secular" and "Socialist." These terms were incorporated during the Emergency period in 1976 through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. Critics have often argued that the amendment was introduced under undemocratic circumstances, bypassing broader consensus. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, had earlier clarified during the Constituent Assembly debates that the principles of secularism and socialism were already embedded in the Constitution through fundamental rights and directive principles. He questioned the necessity of explicitly mentioning these terms, given the Constitution's existing provisions guaranteeing liberty, equality, and justice. The Supreme Court's Stand The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, dismissed the petitions, stating that they lacked merit. The bench emphasized that the arguments presented were "obviously flawed and manifestly unfounded." The court reiterated two landmark cases—Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India—to underline the importance of the Constitution's basic structure. These rulings affirmed that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, as long as the basic structure remains intact. Key Arguments in the Dismissed Petitions The petitioners, including prominent figures like Dr. Subramanian Swamy, contended that: The terms "Secular" and "Socialist" were not part of the original Preamble and were illegitimately added during the Emergency. Parliament lacked the authority to amend the Preamble, as it was not a separate part of the Constitution. The inclusion of these terms altered the Constitution's fundamental character. However, the court rejected these claims, clarifying that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and falls within the ambit of Article 368, which allows for amendments. The judges also highlighted that the inclusion of these terms did not change the Constitution's essence but merely made implicit principles explicit. Understanding Secularism and Socialism in the Indian Context Secularism: The court emphasized that secularism has been a foundational principle of India since its independence. The separation of religion from state affairs ensures equality among citizens of all faiths. Right to Equality, a fundamental right, embodies this principle by treating all beliefs equally under the law. Socialism: Indian socialism differs from the classical understanding, which advocates for the abolition of private property. Instead, it aims for economic and social justice, as enshrined in the Directive Principles. The presence of thriving private enterprises alongside welfare measures demonstrates the nuanced approach of Indian socialism. The court pointed out that the inclusion of these terms in the Preamble aligned with India’s democratic and pluralistic ethos. Why the Petitions Were Rejected Lack of Timeliness: The petitions were filed nearly 44 years after the amendment was introduced. The court noted that these terms have been widely accepted by the public and upheld in multiple judicial rulings over the decades. No Impact on Basic Structure: The court observed that the amendment did not violate the Constitution's basic structure. Instead, it reinforced existing principles like liberty, equality, and justice. Precedent from Landmark Judgments: Referring to the Kesavananda Bharati case, the court reiterated that Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble, provided it does not alter the basic structure. The S.R. Bommai judgment further strengthened the argument by affirming secularism as an inherent aspect of the Constitution. Implications of the Verdict The dismissal of these petitions sends a strong message about the sanctity of the Constitution and its foundational principles. It also reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that amendments align with India’s democratic ideals. Moreover, the verdict underscores the adaptability of the Constitution, allowing it to evolve with changing societal needs while preserving its core values. By rejecting the plea to remove "Secular" and "Socialist," the court has upheld the vision of a pluralistic and inclusive India. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s verdict is a reaffirmation of the enduring principles enshrined in the Constitution. It highlights the importance of secularism and socialism in ensuring equality and justice in a diverse society like India. As debates continue over the relevance of these terms, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder of their significance in shaping the nation’s democratic framework.

The Supreme Court of India has recently dismissed three petitions challenging the inclusion of the terms ‘Secular” and Socialist‘ as well as the procedures adopted for their inclusion in the Constitution. These petitions have revived controversies and legal battles in which these issues were already settled almost 4 decades after those words were introduced in 1976. Explore the court’s view, the historical relevance as well as the impact of this decision on the Indian polity and society.

History Of How The Preamble Was Amended Sometime After It Was Initially Drafted

When India gained independence in mid-twentieth century, the preamble of Preamble to the Constitution of India (commonly known as the Preamble to the Constitution of India) effectively acted as a cut out without the words ‘sacred’ and ’ socialism’ being endorsed. The incorporation of the amendments took place during the EMERGENCY PERIOD In 1976 which formed part of the 42nd Amendment. They have argued that the amendment was brought in under undemocratic conditions because it did not have broad support.

It is worth noting that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who was the main architect in drafting the Constitution had earlier clarified during the plenary assemblies that the foundation of the ethos of secularism as well as socialism had already found adoption in the rubrics of the inalienable rights including that of fundamental rights and groups of directives. He raised the point of why there was a need to mention such terms, apart from the existing constitutional provisions on liberty, justice and equality.

The Views of the Supreme Court

SanJiv Khanna C.J. and SanJai Kumar J. featured into the bench, and they ruled that the petitions were devoid of any merit – and they repeated that so twice. The bench pointed out that the material put forth by the appellants was of ‘obviously and manifestly’ unreasonable nature.

The court had to stress out on two golden cases which have always been there in the footsteps of lawyers and law students as crucial in their own way, which are Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala and SR Bommai v. Union of India in order to assert the supremacy of the basic structure of the Constitution. These judgments demonstrated that the amending authority can alter any part of the constitution including the preamble, provided the basic structure is not altered.

Basis of the Arguments of the Dismissed Petitions

There are a number of participants as petitioners in this regard, the other prominently including Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and it is claimed by them that:

Secular and Socialist were not substantive headed appendages in the original Preamble, but instead were unscrupulously incorporated at the time of the emergency.

Parliament was not empowered to make changes to the preamble because it was not delineated as standalone in the auspices of the constitution.

These words and phrases were brought in, therefore changing the basic structure of the Constitution.

This is in terms of whether it was appropriate to argue that the inclusion of such designations would make it possible to change the constitution. Unfortunately, the court rejected these claims, explaining that the Preamble forms part of the Constitution and is within the scope of Article 368, which does allow changes. There is no need therefore for panic. The judges also pointed out that the inclusion of these terms did not alter the new essence of the Constitution but simply rendered explicit certain implicit principles.

In the light of the above description of secularism it is important to understand socialism within the context of Indian National Congress.

Secularism: As pointed out by the court secularism has been one of the core guiding principles of India since its independence. With this principle, all citizens, regardless of their religion, are treated equally. And the Right to Equality, which is a Right available for all, is one of the embodiments of this principal, which states that in the eyes of the law, all beliefs are equal.

Socialism: Indian socialism’s goal is to establish economic and social justice, as stated in the Directive Principles which is not consistent with the classical definition of socialism which seeks to eliminate private property. The reality of Indian socialism is the coexistence of vibrant private companies with social welfare measures.

The court argued that the incorporation of these terms into the Preamble was consistent with India’s democratic and pluralistic culture.

Why the Petitions Were Withdrawn

Unreasonable Delay: The petitions were brought forth around 44 years after the introduction of the amendment. The court made note of the fact that these terms have been accepted by the general populace and legal decisions taken in the last decades tend to support them.

No Effect on Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has noted that the amendment does not extend the reach of the basic structure of the Constitution. Instead, it is interrelated to many principles already enshrined in the Constitution such as liberty, equality and justice.

Precedent from Landmark Decisions: In respect of the Kesavananda Bharati case, the court further maintained that Parliament is empowered to make changes in the Preamble as long its amendments do not affect the basic structure. The further S.R. Bommai judgment fortified the position by declaring secularism as one of the basic features of the Constitution.

Outlook on the Consequence of the Judgment

The dismissal of these petitions and appeals definitely tells the entire populace of this country as to how revered are the Constitution and its main tenets. It also underlines the role of the judiciary concerning the basic structure theory and the amendments intended to be made in consonance with the democratic fabric of India.

Also, the decision recognizes the relevance of the Constitution, which remains relevant with time, maintaining its basic philosophy. The omission of the request to delete the words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ leaves the idea of a multi-republican India intact.

Conclusion

There are basic tenets contained within the Constitution which the Supreme Court decision has reaffirmed. It stresses the role of secularism and socialism in providing balance and fairness to the citizens of a heterogeneous nation like India. While discussions advance about the use of these terms, the Court decision is an example of how nationalism was created through these concepts around the country.