​Timely reiteration: On the Preamble and the Supreme Court’s order  

The Supreme Court of India has done well to rebuff an attempt to question the characterisation of the country as ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the amended Preamble to the Constitution. Sections of the right wing have been uneasy for long about the identification of secularism as one of the attributes of India. This opposition has acquired traction among those who see the combination of the state not favouring or opposing any religion and the constitutional protection for minorities as something that renders the polity “pseudo-secular”. The original assumption of the makers of the Constitution was that the Constitution — with its emphasis on equality before law and equal treatment of all sections, besides the incorporation of the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion and freedom of belief and conscience in the fundamental rights chapter — is inherently secular. In terms of economic policy, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed amendments to include the word ‘socialist’ by arguing that the Constituent Assembly should not tie down future generations to any particular form of economy. Therefore, the words did not form part of the Preamble adopted along with the Constitution in 1949, but were controversially added through the 42nd Amendment enacted during the Emergency. However, that may not be reason enough for the courts to strike down their inclusion based on writ petitions filed in 2020, about 44 years after the amendment.

The Court, in S.R. Bommai (1994), ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In another case, it said: “Secularism essentially represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.” Regarding the term ‘socialist’, it is clear that its presence in the Preamble has not been an impediment to adoption of laws or policies and practices that open up sectors of the economy to open market competition. As the Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has pointed out, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, “wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith”. Similarly, the term ‘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 Court has not countenanced the argument that the inclusion of these words came during the Emergency, when Parliament’s term was extended, noting that this aspect was debated in Parliament in 1978 when the 44th Amendment Act was considered. As the Constitution completes 75 years of existence, the verdict upholding the inclusion of the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ amounts to a timely reiteration of these fundamental attributes.