Balram Singh vs Union Of India

2024 INSC 893 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No 645 of 2020

Dr Balram Singh and Others Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and Another Respondents

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1467 of 2020

Miscellaneous Application No 835 of 2024

ORDER

Writ Petition (C) No 645 of 2020 and Writ Petition (C) No 1467 of 2020

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2024.11.25 16:02:42 IST Assembly, and the word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy Reason:

choice vesting in the elected government, which represents the will of the

people. Besides, it is submitted that the Forty-second Amendment is

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 1 of 7 vitiated and unconstitutional as it was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on

November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha that had

ended on March 18, 1976. Therefore, it is argued, that there was no will of

the people to sanction the amendments.

2 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 to 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, 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 the Parliament

to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged.

3 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 accord with Article 368. In 1949, the term

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 2 of 7 '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 nor 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—equality of status and

opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice -

social, economic political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith,

and worship, 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'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, 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.

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 3 of 7 4 A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution Bench

judgments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1 and S R Bommai

vs Union of India2, have observed that secularism is a basic feature of

the Constitution. In R C Poudyal v. Union of India3, the Court elucidated

that although the term 'secular' was not present in the Constitution before

its insertion in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second

Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism essentially represents the nation's

commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without

discrimination. In M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India4, this Court

elaborated that the expression secularism in the Indian context is a term of

the widest possible scope. 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 secularism represents one

of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric

that depicts the constitutional scheme's pattern.

5 Similarly, the word 'socialism', in the Indian context should not be

interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government

1 (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges) 2 (1994) 3 SCC 1 (9 Judges) 3 (1994) Supp (1) SCC 324 4 (1994) 6 SCC 360

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 4 of 7 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

has 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

citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. 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).

6 The argument that the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976,

should be struck down due to its enactment during the Emergency and the

extended period of the Lok Sabha was previously deliberated in

Parliament, during the consideration of the Constitution Forty-Fifth

Amendment Bill, 1978. During these deliberations, the inclusion of the

words 'secular' and 'socialist' came under scrutiny. Subsequently, this Bill

was renumbered and called the Constitution Forty-Fourth Amendment Act

1978. 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 all forms of

exploitation—whether social, political, or economic. However, the said

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 5 of 7 amendment as proposed to Article 366 was not accepted by the Council of

States. No doubt, in Excel Wear v. Union of India and Others5, this

Court had held that the addition of the word socialist in the Preamble may

enable the Court to lean more in favour of nationalization and State

ownership of industries, yet this Court recognized private ownership of

industries, which forms a large portion of the economic structure. The

majority judgment of this Court in the 9-Judge Constitution Bench in

Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and

Others6 has cleared any doubt and ambiguity, as it is held that the

Constitution, 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 to the co-existence

of public and private investment.

7 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, provided such actions did not

infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure

of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or

5 (1978) 4 SCC 224 6 2024 INSC 835

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 6 of 7 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 unambiguous, 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.

8 Pending applications, including the applications for intervention, shall also

stand dismissed.

Miscellaneous Application No 835 of 2024

1 The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The Registry is directed to

register the Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14904 of 2024.

2 In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 and Writ

Petition (Civil) No.1467 of 2020, the Writ Petition shall be treated as

dismissed.

..…...….......………………......CJI.

[Sanjiv Khanna]

....…........……………….…........J. [Sanjay Kumar] New Delhi;

November 25, 2024.

W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 7 of 7