A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar announced that the decision would be delivered on Monday, November 25.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Friday(22nd Nov) regarding petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which introduced the terms “socialist” and “secular” into its Preamble.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar announced that the decision would be delivered on Monday, November 25.
While reserving the verdict, the Court emphasized that secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and noted that the 42nd Amendment had previously undergone judicial scrutiny.
“The 42nd Amendment has been subject to judicial review. We cannot declare all past actions of Parliament null and void,” CJI Khanna stated.
The petitions were filed by BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, and Balram Singh. During an earlier hearing, the Court reiterated that secularism is a core constitutional feature, and the terms “socialist” and “secular” should not be interpreted through a Western perspective.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, representing himself, stated that the inclusion of the terms “socialist” and “secular” was not only supported by the Emergency-era Parliament but also by the subsequent Parliament under the Janata Party, which approved it by a two-thirds majority.
He argued that the real issue was whether these terms should be added as a separate paragraph to the Preamble, rather than claiming they were adopted in 1949. “
The point is simple—since this was accepted, it could be presented as a separate paragraph below the original one,” Swamy concluded.
Upadhyay argued that the amendment, passed during the Emergency, was unconstitutional as it occurred under extraordinary circumstances, including an extended Lok Sabha term. He contended that the changes significantly altered the Constitution without state ratification. CJI Khanna acknowledged these points but reminded the petitioners of the amendment’s prior judicial examination.
Advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain and Alakh Alok Srivastava also made submissions, while Subramanian Swamy represented himself.
Jain asserted, “No one can impose a particular ideology on the people of this country,” to which CJI Khanna replied, “No one is doing that.”
The petitioners further argued that the Minerva Mills case did not comprehensively address the terms “secularism” and “socialism.”
However, CJI Khanna pointed out that the SR Bommai case had already clarified the concept of secularism, stating, “Bommai affirms that secularism is part of the basic structure doctrine.”
The Court scheduled the matter for orders on November 25.
Meanwhile, CPI leader and Rajya Sabha MP Binoy Viswam opposed the petitions through a plea filed by advocate Sriram Parakkat.
