Parliament's Power to Amend Extends to the Preamble; 'Socialist' and 'Secular' Challenge Dismissed: Supreme Court

The petitioners challenged the words 'socialist' and 'secular', added to the Preamble in 1976 (opening paragraph). They contended that the insertion operated retrospectively and was false because the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949, that the Constituent Assembly had deliberately left out 'secular', and that 'socialist' fettered the economic policy choices of elected governments (opening paragraph). They added that the amendment was passed on 2 November 1976, during the Emergency and after the Lok Sabha's normal tenure ended on 18 March 1976, without the will of the people (opening paragraph). The petitions were filed in 2020 (para 7).

The flaws in the arguments were obvious, so no detailed adjudication was needed (para 2). Article 368 vests the amending power in Parliament, it extends to the Preamble, and the date on which the Constitution was adopted does not curtail it (para 2). Accepting the retrospectivity argument would equally affect amendments to any part of the Constitution (para 2). The Constituent Assembly's omission of the two words did not matter, because the Constitution is a living document (para 3). India has developed its own understanding of secularism, in which the State neither supports any religion nor penalises any faith, reflected in Articles 14 to 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 (para 3). Earlier decisions, including Kesavananda Bharati and S R Bommai, treat secularism as a basic feature (para 4). 'Socialist' denotes a welfare State committed to equality of opportunity; it mandates no economic policy and does not restrict private enterprise under Article 19(1)(g) (para 5). Property Owners Association confirmed that elected governments may choose their economic structure (para 6). Parliament had already considered the Emergency objection in 1978 (para 6). The words had won wide acceptance, so a challenge after 44 years lacked legitimate cause (para 7).