ENGLISH SHORTHND DICTATION-416

 

These writ petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976.

The challenge is on various grounds, namely, retrospectivity of the insertion in 1976, resulting in falsity as the Constitution was adopted on the 26th day of November 1949; the word 'secular' was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word 'socialist' restricts the economic policy choice vesting in the elected government, which represents the will of the people. Besides, it is submitted that the Forty-second Amendment is unconstitutional as¹⁰⁰ it was 'passed' during the Emergency on November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha that had¹²⁰ ended on March 18, 1976. Therefore, it is argued, that there was no will of the people to sanction the amendments.

The writ petitions do not require detailed adjudication as the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest. Two expressions-'secular' and 'socialist' and the word 'integrity' were inserted in the Preamble vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. These amendments were made in 1976. Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution. The power to²⁰⁰ amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament.

This amending power extends to the Preamble. Amendments to the Constitution can be challenged on various grounds, including violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted,²⁴⁰ and given to themselves by the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not make any difference. The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The retrospectivity argument, if accepted, would equally apply to amendments made to any part of the Constitution, though the power of the³⁰⁰ Parliament to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged.

While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accordance with Article³⁶⁰ 368. In 1949, the term 'secular' was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor⁴⁰⁰ penalizes the profession and practice of any faith.

This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. The Preamble's original tenets reflect this secular ethos. Article 25 guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, other fundamental rights, and the State's⁴⁸⁰ power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices.

Article 26 extends to every religious denomination the right to establish⁵⁰⁰ and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law. Furthermore, Article 29 safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens, while Article 30 grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Despite these provisions, Article 44 in the Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.

A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution Bench judgments in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S. R. Bommai⁶⁰⁰ vs. Union of India, have observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.

The State maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights. However, the 'secular' nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when they, in the larger public interest impede development and the right to equality. In essence, the concept of secularism⁷⁰⁰ represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional⁷²⁰ scheme's pattern.

Similarly, the word 'socialism', in the Indian context should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government of the people's choice at a given time. Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity.

India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has⁸⁰⁰ flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways. In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen⁸⁴⁰ is disadvantaged. 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 word 'secular' was explained as denoting a republic that upholds equal respect for all religions, while 'socialist' was characterized as representing a republic dedicated to eliminating all⁹⁰⁰ forms of exploitation-whether social, political, or economic. However, the said amendment as proposed to Article 366 was not accepted by the Council of States.

The majority judgment of this Court in the 9-Judge Constitution Bench in Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others has cleared any doubt and ambiguity, as it is held that the Constitution,⁹⁶⁰ as framed in broad terms, allows the elected government to adopt a structure for economic governance which would sub-serve the policies for which it is accountable to the electorate. Indian economy has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to¹⁰⁰⁰ the co-existence of public and private investment.

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, provided¹⁰⁸⁰ such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.

Therefore, we do¹¹⁰⁰ 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 clear, 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.¹¹⁷²