Supreme Court Reaffirms Secularism as Part of India's Constitution

Supreme Court Reaffirms Secularism as Part of 

India's Constitution

The Supreme Court of India reiterated on Monday that secularism is a fundamental part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This reaffirmation came during a hearing of petitions that sought to remove the words "secular" and "socialist" from the Preamble of the Constitution. The debate surrounding these terms centers on whether they were intended to be part of the original framework or were later inserted with a specific political agenda.

The Petition and Its Origins

The petition was spearheaded by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and joined by lawyers Balram Singh, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, and Ashwini Upadhyay. Swamy contended that the words "secular" and "socialist," inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, were not part of the original vision of the Constitution's framers.

Swamy argued that these terms, added during The Emergency period, violated the basic structure doctrine that was articulated in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973. In this judgment, a 13-judge bench ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its basic structure.

Secularism and Socialism: Beyond a Western Lens

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar heard the case and emphasized that secularism and socialism should not be viewed solely through a Western lens. According to the bench, the word “socialism” in the Indian context could mean equality of opportunity and the equitable distribution of a nation's wealth, rather than the strict Western notion of state control over resources. Similarly, secularism has been adapted to reflect India’s diverse cultural and religious heritage.

> “Socialism can also mean that there should be equality of opportunity, and the wealth of the country should be distributed equally. Let’s not take the Western meaning. It can have some different meanings as well. The same with the word secularism,” the bench remarked.

Arguments Against the Amendment

Swamy and his fellow petitioners contended that the framers of the Constitution had deliberately avoided including the terms "secular" and "socialist" when the Constitution was originally adopted in 1949. They argued that the 42nd Amendment, passed in 1976 during The Emergency, forcibly inserted these terms into the Preamble, effectively imposing political ideologies that were never intended by the original framers of the Constitution.

Swamy further argued that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, had rejected the incorporation of these terms, believing that citizens should have the right to choose their political ideologies, rather than having them imposed through constitutional amendments.

Opposition to the Plea

Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Binoy Viswam, from the Communist Party of India (CPI), opposed Swamy's plea, arguing that secularism and socialism are integral to the Constitution's foundational values. Viswam contended that these concepts are inherent to the basic structure of the Constitution and that their inclusion in the Preamble reflects the commitment to social justice, equality, and religious neutrality.

Constitutional Debate: Basic Structure Doctrine

The basic structure doctrine was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its essential features, such as democracy, federalism, secularism, and judicial review. Swamy's petition claimed that the insertion of these terms by the 42nd Amendment overstepped Parliament’s amending powers.

The petition argued that secularism and socialism were thrust upon the people without proper constitutional authority, and the amendment exceeded Parliament's power under Article 368. The petition also stated that these concepts should not have been inserted into the Preamble, as they restrict the citizens’ right to choose their political beliefs.

Next Steps in the Case

After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court bench decided to post the matter for further hearing in the third week of November. The future hearings will delve deeper into the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment and whether these terms belong in the Preamble as part of India’s basic structure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s discussion on secularism and socialism highlights the enduring significance of these concepts in Indian democracy. While the petitioners argue that these terms were never part of the original Constitution and were politically motivated additions, the opposing view holds that these values are central to the vision of a just, equal, and inclusive India. The upcoming hearings will be crucial in determining how the court interprets the balance between constitutional amendments and the basic structure doctrine in this context.