A writ petition in the Supreme Court requests the removal of “socialism” and “secularism” from India’s Constitution Preamble, arguing they were added unconstitutionally during the 1976 Emergency. The petitioner claims modifications without state ratification distort its authenticity, conflict with contemporary values, and challenge Parliament’s amendment powers, questioning the balance between evolving democratic values and historical intent.
New Delhi: A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of the words socialism and secularism from the Preamble of India’s Constitution. The petitioner contends that these terms were added unconstitutionally during the Emergency in 1976 through the 42nd Amendment, undermining the Preamble’s original intent and historical authenticity.
The plea argues that the Preamble, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, is an “unalterable historical document” and its retrospective modification compromises its authenticity. According to the petitioner, Parliament lacked authority to alter the Preamble without state ratification or reflecting the people’s will, as required for changes of such constitutional magnitude.
Key Arguments
The petition references the Kesavananda Bharati judgment to underscore the Preamble’s symbolic and historical significance. It asserts that the addition of terms like socialism and secularism during the Emergency occurred without following a proper democratic process and did not represent the people’s will.
The plea states:
- Socialism conflicts with India’s economic policies, which increasingly lean toward capitalism, making the term obsolete in practice.
- Secularism, as interpreted, has failed to ensure uniform laws for all citizens, with personal religious laws still governing significant aspects of life.
These terms, the petitioner argues, do not align with the evolving aspirations of India’s democratic framework.
Original Intent
The plea emphasizes that the Constituent Assembly intentionally omitted subjective terms like socialism and secularism to maintain the Constitution’s foundational ethos. It claims the Preamble’s insertion of these terms was not part of the democratic will, especially since the amendment occurred under emergency conditions.
By requiring state ratification, the petitioner argues, any future modifications to the Preamble would better reflect the people’s consensus, ensuring the Constitution evolves democratically while preserving its core values.
Importance of Preservation
Highlighting the Preamble’s role as a legacy of India’s founders, the petition stresses that its essence must remain unchanged even as amendments adapt other parts of the Constitution to contemporary needs. “As a historical document, the Preamble’s sanctity must be preserved to honor the vision of the framers,” the petition asserts.
Read Also: Permission Granted || Shirdi Saibaba Temple Resumes Flower Offerings After Three Years
Implications
This plea raises significant constitutional questions about the scope of Parliament’s amendment powers and the sanctity of the Preamble as a historical document. The petition challenges whether amendments can reflect contemporary values while respecting the original vision of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will not only clarify the boundaries of constitutional amendments but also redefine the Preamble’s role in shaping India’s legal and social ethos.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE