The Supreme Court has rejected the petition filed against adding the words secular and socialist in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court said that no constitutional amendment can be invalidated during emergency. The words secular and socialist were added to the Preamble through a constitutional amendment during the Emergency in 1976.
The bench headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that there is no need to hear the petition filed in this case in detail. Earlier, the Supreme Court had refused to send the case to a larger bench and had reserved its decision after hearing the case. The Chief Justice bench said that the words secular and socialist were added to the Constitution under an amendment in 1976 and are in force since 1949, but this does not affect its validity. Its enactment since 1949 does not affect the facts.
The court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble of the Constitution and the validity of the amendment can no longer be questioned. The Supreme Court held that the power given to Parliament to amend the Constitution applies to the Preamble also. The Preamble is part of the Constitution and cannot be considered separate from it. The bench of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that what is the justification in raising this issue after so many years. The court said that after so many questions the amendment process cannot be invalidated.
The word socialist means welfare of the state
The me.ng of socialism in India is in a different context. It makes the state responsible for providing welfare and equal opportunities to the people. Regarding the word secular, he said that it is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In the case of SR Bomi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that the preamble is part of the basic structure.
During the hearing of the case, the petitioners argued that the Constitution was amended during the Emergency and people did not get a chance to present their side in the matter. At the same time it was also a fundamental structural change. The petitioners said that only the Constituent Assembly has the right to amend the Preamble. Also, the states also did not approve this amendment. During this, the Supreme Court said in its comment that emergency circumstances do not affect the reform process and the decisions of Parliament taken during this period cannot be invalidated. The Supreme Court held that the words socialist and secular were consistent with the objectives of the Constitution. Petitioner Dr. Swamy has admitted that the Janata Party government had also supported these words.
What did the Supreme Court say in its comment?
During the hearing, the Supreme Court refused to send the petition filed against adding the words secular and socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution to a larger bench.
– Chief Justice Khanna said that in the Indian context, socialist means welfare state.
-The Chief Justice said that we cannot say that any work done by the Parliament during the Emergency is invalid.
-The Supreme Court said that secularism has always been a part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
-The Supreme Court has said many times in its decisions that secularism has always been a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and has been a part of it.
-If we look at the right to equality, the words fraternity and fraternity are also used in it, which clearly gives the message that secularism is the main feature of the Indian Constitution.
What were the arguments of the applicants
The addition of the words secular and socialist at the end of the Preamble of the Constitution was challenged in the Supreme Court.
-Petitioner Subrahmanyam Swamy had filed a petition demanding removal of the words secularism and socialism added in the Preamble by constitutional amendment.
-Subram.an Swamy appeared personally and said that the later elected government also supported keeping these words in the Preamble. But the question is whether it should have been kept in a separate paragraph or it should have been made effective from the date of 1949 itself.
Apart from this, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain and others also filed an application. Jain argued that the term was inserted in the Preamble through a constitutional amendment in 1976 but public opinion was not sought before that.
-This change happened during the Emergency and if seen, a particular ideology was imposed on the people. Once the Preamble comes into force, how can it be amended and implemented from the date itself? This matter should be sent to a larger bench.
– Petitioner lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay argued that he is not against the words socialist, secular and integrity. We are not against keeping it in the Constitution but against including it in the Preamble in 1976. It was introduced in 1976 during the tenure of Indira Gandhi and came into force on 26 November 1949.
Understand the whole matter like this
Actually, in 1976, during the time of Indira Gandhi, the word secular was added to the Preamble of the Constitution and after this there was a lot of controversy. A question always arises whether the word secular can be removed from the Preamble? Can the word secular be removed in the same way as the word secular was introduced by constitutional amendment?
-The word secular was not in the original preamble of the Constitution. When the Preamble of the Indian Constitution was written, an amendment was introduced in the Constituent Assembly to add the words secular and socialist. But that amendment was rejected and the Preamble of the Constitution then read a sovereign, democratic republic.
-This constitution was implemented on 26 January 1950. Later, when Indira Gandhi was in power, the 42nd amendment was made to the Constitution and in 1976 this amendment mentioned a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic in the Preamble. Thus the words secular and socialist were added to the Preamble. The words secular and socialist were not in the preamble of the original Constitution but a constitutional amendment was implemented from 1949.
– The inclusion of these words in the preamble was challenged but the Supreme Court rejected the petition and also refused to refer the case to a larger bench.
The dispute ends after the decision
The Supreme Court in its judgment has rejected the petition filed against adding the words secular and socialist in the Preamble, it is expected that this much-discussed controversy will come to an end. However, the Supreme Court made it clear in its remarks during the hearing that secularism has always been a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has said many times in its decisions that secularism has always been and is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. If we look at the right to equality, the words fraternity and fraternity are also used in it, which clearly gives the message that secularism is the main feature of the Indian Constitution.
