A nationwide debate has been triggered by the remarks made by the RSS General Secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, at an event to commemorate the 50 years of imposition of the Emergency. The contention is whether the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ should be retained in the Preamble to the Constitution, which were inserted in the Constitution vide 42nd Constitution Amendment (CA). He argued that the Preamble is meant to be eternal, so, “should socialism be considered eternal for India?”
He conceded that “… the ideas of secularism may have existed; they may have been part of governance and state policy…. But should these two words remain in the Preamble? This… deserves a review”. The debate escalated when the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, said that the words added to the Preamble were an “ulcer”, a sacrilege to the spirit of “Sanatana” and “signal betrayal of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution .…”
Astonishingly, the debate over “socialism and secularism” has reignited so early, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in November 2024, holding them integral to the Constitution in the case of Dr Balram Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. The writ petitions sought to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble because the impugned words were inserted with retrospective effect; the word ‘secular’ was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choice vesting in the elected Government, which represents the will of the people; and that the 42nd CA was unconstitutional as it was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended on March 18, 1976.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution, including 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, 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, which is incontrovertible. The Apex Court observed that it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble. But the Constitution is a living document, and the power of Parliament to amend it is in accord with Article 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 interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith.”
The principle of secularism as enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16 prohibits discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection under the law 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, etc., and the State’s power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices. Article 26 extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions.
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 educational institutions.
Despite these provisions, Article 44, one of the Directive Principles of State Policy, permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.
In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, SR Bommai vs Union of India, and Ayodhya-Babri Verdict, the Supreme Court have observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The ‘secular’ nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of practices connected with religion when they impede development and the right to equality.
Secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality and liberty.
The words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ have become integral to the Preamble, and they have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected Governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.
Intriguingly, despite dismissal of writ petitions, and despite Article II of the Constitution (2012) of BJP which declares that “The Party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, as by law established and the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy…”, the demand for exclusion of socialism and secularism from the Preamble to the Constitution is being raked up.
It is also being argued that the Hindus organise bhandaras, and therefore, there is no need to retain the word socialism in the Preamble! In obedience to the imperative constitutional directive, the State is enjoined to address the causes of hunger, alleviate poverty and secure socio-economic empowerment. To liken the distribution of alms or bhandaras to socialism is bizarre and ludicrous. The Directive Principles of State Policy contain instruments of instructions for law-making to attain the constitutional goal of equal justice, social, economic, and political. The legislature, through various enactments, and the judiciary, by giving a harmonious interpretation, have added a new thrust and momentum to the Directive Principles of State Policy. This conjures up the sagacity and wisdom of Bheeshma in the Mahabharat when he tells King Yudhister that- “The State was created to protect the weak, the poor, the exploited, the helpless, and the oppressed from the strong.” A well-governed State is one where there is adequate growth in assets and services, where assets are well distributed and protected, and all citizens get their fair share.
It should not be lost sight of that Article 51A was also inserted by the 42nd CA, incorporating Fundamental Duties of citizens, on which so much emphasis is being laid, and rightly. Likewise, the entries relating to Forests, Protection of wild animals and birds and education, etc., were deleted from the State List of the Seventh Schedule and inserted in the Concurrent List, conferring greater power on Parliament to legislate on these subjects concurrently. The 1st, 93rd, 103rd and 106th CAs further the goal of socio-economic and political justice by providing reservations for the marginalised and weaker sections.
The argument that “Secularism” is promotive of “adharma” or immorality is specious and hollow. Secularism does not imply that the State or the citizens act immorally or irresponsibly. There is no statutory fetter on religious ceremonies. The inauguration of the new Parliament building witnessed religious ceremonies by the priests of different faiths, demonstrating “sarva dharma sambhava”, that is, equal respect for all religions. Dharma denotes not religion, but righteous order and conduct. Raj dharma is akin to modern constitutional morality or the moral obligation of the ruler. The inscriptions in the Parliament building and the Supreme Court of India read, “Dharma Chakra Pravartana” and “Yato Dharma Tato Jaya”, reminding the importance of dharma in the functioning of the State.
As long as there are deepening disparities, increasing concentration of wealth and monopolies and widening social chasm and want of inter-religious cohesion, it is all the more imperative that the State promotes and strengthens the social and secular order enshrined in the Constitution, forming an integral part of its immutable basic structure. The words “ Social “ and Secular-constitute the armour and the breast plate of citizens, making it the People’s Constitution.
(The writer is Ex-Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha)