Why in news
A batch of petitions was filed in 2020 challenging the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
Petitioners, including BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, argued that the retrospective insertion of these words (from 1949) was unconstitutional.
Petitioners' Arguments
The words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were not part of the original Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly had deliberately avoided the word ‘secular’.
The word ‘socialist’ fettered the economic policy choices of the government, which should reflect the will of the people.
Court’s Ruling
The Court found the motives of the petitioners "questionable" as the petitions were filed 44 years after the amendment.
The Court confirmed that the Preamble is an inalienable part of the Constitution and that Parliament has the unquestionable power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
The retrospective amendment to the Preamble was upheld, and the Court ruled that the date of adoption (1949) does not limit Parliament's power to amend under Article 368.
The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed according to the needs of the time.
The Court acknowledged that while the Constituent Assembly was unsure about what 'secularism' should mean, over time, India developed its own interpretation.
Secularism, as understood in India, means equal respect for all religions, and it has become a basic feature of the Constitution.
COMMENTS