New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (November 26) dismissed a batch of petitions that that challenged the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that there was no “legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,” reported LiveLaw.
The Court rejected the argument of retrospectivity by saying that the amendment power of the Parliament extends to the Preamble too and date of adoption of the Preamble does not restrict this power of amendment.
“In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme’s pattern,” said the judgment.
“In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g),” the judgment added.
While dismissing the petitions, the court also questioned the timing of the filing, four decades after the amendment was made.
“The fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ became integral to the Preamble, makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by “We, the people of India” without any semblance of doubt. The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution,” said the judgment.
“Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. The circumstances do not warrant this Court’s exercise of discretion to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic pronouncement. This being the clear position, we do not find any justification or need to issue notice in the present writ petitions, and the same are accordingly dismissed,” the judgment added.
